Financial Markets

Special Report

Highlights Trump is adding stimulus and potential rigidities to the U.S. economy as the labor market slack vanishes. This evocates the 1970s and stagflation. This risk could resonate among investors as there are enough similarities with the late 1960s / early 1970s. But as well, crucial differences greatly reduce the likelihood of such a scenario. Ultimately, the Fed holds the key. If the Fed stays behind the curve for too long, inflation will emerge. Our bet is that the Fed will not fall behind the curve significantly. On a cyclical basis, the dollar will remain strong and the yen will underperform massively. Feature On November 11 we argued that the first round effect of a Trump victory would be to boost an already improving U.S. economy, giving the Fed more reason to increase interest rates faster than was priced in by markets.1 However, we did conclude our economic assessment of Trump by highlighting the potential for a dangerous outcome: "In the long-run, the Trump growth dividend is likely to require a payback, but this discussion is for another day." What will be the nature of this payback? Goosing up the economy as the U.S. approaches full employment evokes the inflationary policies of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Back then, the Vietnam War caused the Federal government deficit to increase while economic slack was limited. Stagflation ensued. While this parallel is appealing, it is also too simplistic. Trump's policies will be inflationary, but, key structural factors will prevent the fiery inflationary inferno that engulfed the 1970s. Policymakers will need to be careful, however, because while stagflation and the 1970s are only distant risks today, a Pandora's box is being opened. The Similarities The first similarity between the late 1960s / early 1970s is that Trump promises to inject stimulus exactly as the economy hits full employment. When President Johnson increased the U.S.'s involvement in Vietnam, the U.S. output gap was already closed. The result of this fiscal stimulus was to create excess demand. This excess demand not only put upward pressure on wages and prices, but also caused the U.S. current account deficit to balloon. Trump wants to cut taxes by US$6.2 trillion, as expected by the Tax Policy Institute. Before November 8, the labor market had already tightened and wage growth was already accelerating (Chart 1). Stimulating in this context could unleash potent inflationary forces. The second similarity to Vietnam-era stagflation is that Trump's fiscal stimulus will materialize as monetary policy remains easy. By 1969, U.S. real short rates were already hovering near 0%, and were negative for three years between 1974 and 1977 (Chart 2). Today, we are also experiencing deeply negative real rates. However, back then these easy monetary conditions were being felt at the tail end of a multi-decade boom. Today, they reflect the aftermath of a financial crisis that has greatly increased the demand for precautionary savings and depressed the private sector's appetite for credit. Chart 1Tightening Labor Market Chart 2Similarity: Low Real Rates The third parallel comes from the liquidity on bank balance sheets. Today, as was the case in the late 1960s and early 1970s, banks are flush with liquid assets (Chart 3). Thus, banks have the fuel to aggressively lend and create money. Outside of banking crises, the willingness of banks to lend is often closely correlated with the demand for loans.2 Both respond to the same economic shocks, whether positive or negative. After the 1970 recession, the Fed eased aggressively, and business investment rebounded quickly. Today, Trump's fiscal reflation could revive animal spirits in a similar fashion. In both instances, banks have the wherewithal to support growing capex and loan demand. Another troubling resemblance is the illiquid state of household balance sheets. Today, household liquidity represents as small a share of disposable income as it did in 1970 (Chart 4). In fact, compared to total liabilities, household liquidity remains in the lower end of the historical distribution. Why does this matter? Chart 3Similarity: Bank Liquidity Chart 4Similarity: Household Illiquidity Under this set of circumstances, households will have a higher political tolerance for inflation. Except for the rich, the average household has little to lose from inflation, especially if the rise in prices emanates from an over-stimulated labor market. Inflation does decrease the real value of household liquid assets, but it does the same thing to their much larger debt burdens. The large increase over the past 30 years in U.S. income inequality only reinforces these dynamics (Chart 5). Chart 5Growing Inequalities The last parallel is the potential for a return to pre-Reagan economic rigidities. Trump has talked about imposing tariffs on global exporters in order "to make America great again." He also mentioned limiting immigration in the U.S. Neither of these promises are clear, and like the fiscal stimulus, they could be greatly dialed back compared to the campaign-trail promises. What would be the impact of such a move away from globalization? Our Global Investment Strategy service argues that the growth impact would be limited. Academic models show that since 1990, only 5% of the increase in global GDP growth can be attributed to deeper trade linkages.3 However, the integration of China in the global supply chain and the expansion of the American labor force through immigration has depressed wages for less skilled U.S. workers. Yet, the emergence of new markets outside of the G10 has boosted profits for U.S. multinationals. This has accentuated income inequality. Meanwhile, the marginal propensity to save of rich households is around 60%, while that of the middle class and the poor sits much closer to zero. Thus, the change in the U.S. income distribution has depressed U.S. consumption by 3% since 1980 (Chart 6). This has created a strong deflationary impact on in the economy. Chart 6Unequal Income Depresses Consumption Therefore, if Trump does implement a protectionist and anti-immigration agenda, it would likely put upward pressure on prices by causing both a small inward shift in U.S. aggregate supply as well as from the increase in demand resulting from higher middle class wages (and therefore consumption). Bottom Line: Today, like in the late 1960s / early 1970s, five conditions are present to lift inflation: Trump is set to stimulate the economy as it is hitting full employment; Monetary policy is extremely accommodative; Banks have plenty of liquidity to fuel any resurgence in excess demand; household balance sheet make them politically friendly to inflationary dynamics; And by moving away from globalization and immigration, Trump may add further fuel to any inflationary developments The Differences While there are troubling parallels between Trump and the 1970s, key differences could prove to be just as important if not even more so than the similarities. The first difference between now and then is the structure of the labor market. Unionization rates have collapsed from 30% of employees in 1960 to 11% today. The accompanying fall in the weight of wages and salaries in national income demonstrates the decline in the power of labor (Chart 7). Without this power, it is much more difficult for household income to grow as fast as it did in the 1960s and 1970s. In conjunction, cost-of-living-adjustment clauses have vanished from U.S. labor contracts (Chart 8). Hence, the key mechanism that fed the vicious inflationary circle between wages and prices is now extinct. Chart 7Difference: Labor Has Lost Its Power Chart 8With No Bargaining Power, Concessions To Labor Ceased... Second, the broad capacity utilization picture could not be more different than in the 1970s. In 1970, the U.S was at the tail end of a decade of strong cyclical spending, which was powered by consumer durable-goods purchases, not by capex and capacity growth (Chart 9). In fact, the stock of fixed assets as a percent of GDP is much higher today than it was back then, pointing to excess capacity in the system, at least relative to the 1970s (Chart 10). Chart 9Difference: Cyclical Spending Chart 10Difference: Capital Stock Corroborating this image, capacity utilization remains quite low by historical standards. Interestingly, this series continues to hold good explanatory power for inflation (Chart 11). While a Trump stimulus would cause this measure to perk up, and for deflationary risk to vanish, we are nowhere near levels associated with a major inflation outbreak. Chart 11Difference: Capacity Utilization Even when we look at capacity in the labor market, the picture is once again markedly different. Today, unemployment is only beginning to flirt with its equilibrium after nearly nine years of deep labor market slack. In contrast, by the late 1960s, the unemployment gap had been negative for seven years. It barely moved into positive territory during the 1970 recession and only surged higher after 1974 (Chart 12). This was a very inflationary labor market. Mirroring the U.S., global capacity utilization is depressed and the rest of the world remains a deflationary anchor (Chart 13). In the late 1960s and early 1970s, non-U.S. inflation was just as high as U.S. inflation, as global capacity was tight and global money growth was strong. Today, heavy capex in EM means that despite a sharp slowdown in DM investment after 2000, global capex has remained at 25% or so of global GDP - a very high level compared to history - for 7 out of the last 10 years. Chart 12Difference: Labor Market Chart 13Global Capacity Utilization Is Low Third, in the 1960s and 1970s, animal spirits were running wild. Despite growing government deficits and rising borrowing costs, the crowding out of the private sector never materialized (Chart 14). This was a testament to the optimistic belief of the era, a belief fed by the resilience of the economy since 1950, as well as by the implicit support created by decades of Keynesian policies. Today, fiscal stimulus and rising consumer spending could resurrect animal spirits. However, this would be a nascent phenomenon, not a multi-decade one, implying a very different set of expectations for investors, consumers, and business than in the late 1960s / early 70s. Fourth, the monetary picture is very different. Today, both the money multiplier and money velocity are extremely depressed, a sign that monetary constipation still defines our age. In the 1960s and 1970s, money velocity and the money multiplier were both elevated or experiencing sharp upturns (Chart 15). This is why low real rates of that era did translate into accelerated economic activity and inflation, unlike the uninspiring effects of low rates or QE programs today. Chart 14Raging Animal Spirits Chart 15Difference: Monetary Backdrop Finally and most crucially, the rising inflation of the late 1960s only mutated into genuine stagflation after the economy was hit by a massive supply shock: the 1973 oil embargo. In the wake of the Yom Kippur War, OPEC tripled the price of oil - the commodity powering the modern economic machine. Global capacity utilization was already tight, but this shock created a massive inward shift in global aggregate supply, ratcheting aggregate price levels higher while hurting aggregate output (Chart 16). But the true coup de grace only emerged when fiscal and monetary authorities massively eased policy in response to this shock: The U.S. federal deficit skyrocketed from 2.3% of GDP in 1974 to 8% in 1975 and short rates fell from 8.9% in 1974 to 4.9% in 1976. This boosted aggregate demand back to its original level, but with sharply more elevated price levels (Chart 16). Chart 16Mechanics Of A Supply Shock Today, we have seen oil prices collapse by 56% since 2014 in response to a positive supply shock, and global capacity utilization is low. Thus, while fiscal stimulus could push aggregate price levels upward as it lifts aggregate demand, the effect on inflation should prove much more muted than when such policies are implemented in the face of a supply shock. Bottom Line: Important similarities exist between the potential effect of Trump's suggested policies and the economic environment of the late 1960s / early 1970s. However, five structural and cyclical differences suggest that Trump is not bound to recreate stagflation: The de-unionization of the labor force has removed its pricing power, capacity utilization is now infinitely more benign than back then, animal spirits are only recovering today while they were running wild in the late 1960s / early 1970s, the monetary environment backdrop is also much less inflationary, and finally, we are not experiencing the kind of supply shock and mistaken policy response that hit the world in the wake of the 1973 oil embargo. Question Marks Key to the outlook is the Fed itself. Trump's policies will put upward pressure on prices. However, the Fed continues to avoid committing to a tighter policy path beyond this December. The Fed has good reasons to do so: Trump has offered the world no clarity regarding his actual plans while in office. With little labor market slack, any stimulus is inflationary; how inflationary will be a function of the details. So should be the Fed's response. For inflation to truly emerge in the system, the Fed will need to keep policy easy even as Trump's plans become clearer. In the 1970s, a too-easy Fed spurred excess demand that lifted inflation and inflation expectations. Moreover, if the Fed had not cut rates as aggressively as it did in 1974 - a policy that boosted demand but that did nothing to compensate for the shortfall in aggregate supply - the inflationary shock from the oil embargo should have proven much more transitory. The Fed's recent talk of a "high-pressure" economy evokes a repeat of the 1970s mistake. However, there is no guarantee that this error will be repeated. For one, the references to a "high-pressure" economy predated the Trump victory. Second, fiscal stimulus is what the Fed has wanted for a long time. Trump is giving the FOMC the cover they have needed to do what they have tried to do since 2014: increase rates. Finally, inflation expectations are beginning to move upward. This is what the Fed needs to push interest rates higher. Moreover, this is happening as long-term inflation expectations begin decoupling from oil prices (Chart 17). This is important as it suggests that the economy is gaining traction and that markets are starting to anticipate a lift off from the zero lower bound. Thus, while we think a lagging Fed is a risk, it is not currently our base-case scenario. The second question mark is the dollar. One of the key factors that prompted the dis-anchoring of inflation and inflation expectations in the early 1970s was the suspension of the dollar's convertibility to gold in August 1971. This unleashed a period of weakness for the greenback that culminated in a 30% devaluation by 1980 (Chart 18). Moreover, a weak dollar fueled the commodity bull market. Chart 17The Fed Must Enjoy This Chart 18The Dollar Added To Inflation Today, the dollar is strong and expensive, creating a deflationary anchor in the U.S. economy. Our expectations that the Fed will not fall behind the curve once the nature of the Trump stimulus becomes clearer would re-inforce this trend. However, a failure by the Fed to tighten monetary policy appropriately, leaving the U.S. central bank behind the curve, would have a negative impact on the dollar. Not only would it put downward pressure on real rate differentials between the U.S. and the rest of the world, but it would also depress the PPP fair value of the dollar by increasing domestic inflation. Bottom Line: The two key swing factors are the Fed's policy response and the dollar. In the late 1960s / early 1970s, the Fed kept policy too easy. Not only did this greatly fan the underlying inflationary dynamics that were already present in the economy, but it also created a very negative environment for the dollar, prompting the end of the dollar peg in August 1971. This further lifted inflation in the economy. The Endgame And Investment Conclusion Given all these conflicting forces, how will this experiment end? Pure stagflation with late 1970s-style inflation is out of the picture. However, inflation of 4% to 5% is very possible, but it could take time to show up in the data. In the 1960s, it took U.S. inflation until mid-1968 to hit 4%. By that time, the output gap had been positive for around 5 years, hitting 6% of GDP in 1966 (Chart 19). Unemployment had been below its equilibrium rate since 1963, and by 1968 was 2.5% below NAIRU. Chart 19No Slack In The 1960s This suggests that unless the Fed falls significantly behind the curve, even 4% inflation may take a long time to emerge this cycle. However, inflationary risks will grow considerably after the next recession. We do not know when this recession will happen, but we know what the result will be: more policy easing. It took until the 1970 recession and the associated policy boost to genuinely dis-anchor inflation expectations in the U.S. Today, an easing in policy and an associated fall in the dollar are likely to be the key criteria to generate real inflation risk in the U.S. As for currency implications, the lack of an inflationary outburst along with a responsible Fed will continue to support the dollar and hurt precious metals. In terms of exchange rates, USD/JPY should perform particularly well. The Japanese economy is near full employment and the Abe administration also is talking about additional stimulus. Yet, while the Fed will not stay behind the curve for long, the BoJ is explicitly aiming at staying behind the curve. This is a recipe for a higher dollar/yen on a 12-18 months basis. The euro is likely to continue to weaken as there remains more slack in the euro area than the U.S. However, this slack is diminishing and the ECB would respond to its disappearance, which implies that EUR/USD has less downside than the yen on a 12-18 months basis. Commodities are unlikely to repeat their amazing performance seen in the 1970s. Thus, commodity currencies should continue to suffer from dollar strength. The pound will be dominated by its own set of dynamics. While the probability of a soft Brexit has been growing ever since the High Court's ruling was issued, the appeal decision still needs to be made. Moreover, headline risk remains very elevated. Thus while valuation argues in favor of GBP, buying GBP today is a high-risk gamble. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Reaganomics 2.0?", dated November 11, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 William F. Bassett, Mary Beth Chosak, John C. Driscoll, and Egon Zakrajsek, "Changes In Bank Lending Standards And The Macroeconomy," Journal of Monetary Economics 62 (2014): pp. 23-40. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Elusive Gains From Globalization", dated November 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights Trump's foreign policy proposals will exacerbate geopolitical risks. Sino-American relations are the chief risk - they will determine global stability. A Russian reset will benefit Europe, especially outside the Russian periphery. Trump will retain the gist of the Iran nuclear deal. Turkey and North Korea are wildcards. Feature Chart 1Market Rally Redoubled After Trump's Win Financial markets rallied sharply after the election of Donald Trump and the resulting prospect of lower taxes, fewer regulations, and greater fiscal thrust (Chart 1). But is the euphoria justified in light of Trump's unorthodox views on U.S. foreign policy and trade? Is Trump's "normalization" amid the transition to the White House a reliable indicator that the geopolitical status quo will largely be preserved? We believe Trump's election marks a substantial increase in geopolitical risk that is being understated by markets.1 This is not because of his personality, though that is not particularly reassuring, but rather because of his policy proposals. If acted on, Trump's geopolitical agenda would exacerbate global trends that are already underway: Waning U.S. Dominance: American power, relative to other nations, has been declining in recent years as a result of the emergence of new economic and military powers like China and India (Chart 2). If Trump allows himself to be sucked into another conflict despite his campaign promises - say, by overturning the nuclear deal with Iran - he could embroil the U.S. at a time when it is relatively weak. Multipolarity: America's relative decline has emboldened various other nations to pursue their interests independently, increasing global friction and creating a world with multiple "poles" of influence.2 If Trump keeps his word on reducing foreign commitments he will speed along this historically dangerous process. Lesser powers like Russia and Turkey will try to fill vacuums created by the U.S. with their own ambitions, with competition for spheres of influence potentially sparking conflict. Multipolarity has already increased the incidence of global conflicts (Chart 3). De-Globalization: The greatest risk of the incoming administration is protectionism. Trump ran on an overtly protectionist platform. Democratic-leaning economic patriots in the American "Rust Belt" handed him the victory (Chart 4), and he will enact policies to maintain these pivotal supporters in 2018 and 2020 elections. This will hasten the decline of trade globalization, which we signaled was peaking back in 2014.3 It does not help that multipolarity and collapse of globalization have tended to go hand in hand in the past. And historically speaking, big reversals in global trade do not end well (Chart 5). Chart 2U.S. Power Eroding In A Relative Sense Chart 3Multipolarity Increases Conflict Frequency Chart 5Declines In Global Trade Preceded World Wars In what follows we assess what we think are likely to be the most important geopolitical effects of Trump's "America First" policies. We see Russia and Europe as the chief beneficiaries, and China and Iran as the chief risks. A tougher stance on China, in particular, will feed broader strategic distrust; the combination of internal and external pressures on China will ensure that the latter will not be as flexible as in the past. For the past five years, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has stressed that the deterioration in Sino-American cooperation is the greatest geopolitical risk for investors - and the world. Trump's election will accelerate this process. Trump And Eurasia Trump's election is clearly a boon for Russia. Over the past 16 years, Russia has methodically attempted to collect the pieces from the Soviet collapse. The purpose of Putin's assertiveness has been to defend the Russian sphere of influence (namely Ukraine and Belarus in Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia) from outside powers: the U.S. and NATO seemed eager to "move in for the kill" after Russia emerged from the ashes. Putin also needed to rally popular support at various times by distracting the public with "rally around the flag" operations. We view Ukraine and Syria through this analytical prism. Lastly, Russia acted aggressively because it needed to reassure its allies that it would stand up for them.4 And yet the U.S. can live with a "strong" Russia. It can make a deal with Russia if the Trump administration recognizes some core interests (e.g. Crimea) and calls off the "democracy promotion" activities that Putin considers to be directly aimed at the Kremlin. As we argued during the Ukraine invasion, it is the U.S., not Russia, which poses the greatest risk of destabilization.5 That is because the U.S. lacks constraints. It can be aggressive towards Russia and face zero consequences: it has no economic relationship with Russia (Chart 6) and does not stand directly in the way of any retaliation, as Europe does. That is why we think Trump and Putin will manage to reset relations. The U.S. can step back and allow Russia to control its sphere of influence. Trump's team may be comfortable with the concept, unlike the Obama administration, whose Vice-President Joe Biden famously pronounced that America "will not recognize any nation having a sphere of influence." We could even see the U.S. pledging not to expand NATO from this point onwards, given that it has already expanded as far as it can feasibly and credibly go. Note, however, that a Russo-American truce may not last long. George W. Bush famously "looked into Putin's eyes and ... saw his soul," but relations soured nonetheless. Obama went further with his "Russian reset," removing European missile defense plans from avowed NATO allies Poland and Czech Republic merely one year after Russian troops invaded Georgia. And yet Moscow and Washington ended up rattling sabers and meddling in each other's internal affairs. Ultimately, U.S. resets fail because Russia is in a structural decline as a great power and is attempting to hold on to a very large sphere of influence whose denizens are not entirely willing participants.6 Because Moscow often must use blunt force to prevent the revolt of its vassal states (e.g. Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014), it renews tensions with the West. Unless Russia strengthens significantly in the next few years, we would expect the cycle to continue. On the horizon may be Ukraine-like incidents in neighboring Belarus and Kazakhstan, both key components of the Russian sphere of influence. Bottom Line: Russia will get a reprieve from U.S. pressure under Trump. While we expect Europe to extend sanctions through the end of 2017, a rapprochement with Washington could ultimately thaw relations by the end of next year. Europe stands to benefit, being able to resume business as usual with Russia and face less of a risk of Russian provocations via the Middle East, like in Syria. The recent decline in refugee flows will be made permanent with Russia's cooperation. The losers will be states in the Russian periphery that will feel less secure about American, EU and NATO backing, particularly Ukraine, but also Turkey. Countries like Belarus, which enjoyed playing Moscow against the West in the past, will lose the ability to do so. Once the U.S. abandons plans to prop up pro-West regimes in the Russian sphere of influence, Europeans will drop their designs to do the same as well. Trump And The Middle East Trump's "America First" foreign policy promises to be Obama's "geopolitical deleveraging" on steroids. He is opposed to American adventurism and laser-focused on counter-terrorism and U.S. domestic security. He also wants to deregulate the U.S. energy sector aggressively to encourage even greater energy independence (Chart 7). The chief difference from Obama - and a major risk to global stability - is Iran, where Trump could overturn the Obama administration's 2015 nuclear deal, potentially setting the two countries back onto the path of confrontation. Nevertheless, this deal never depended on Obama's preferences but was rooted in a strategic logic that still holds:7 Iraqi stability: The U.S. needed to withdraw troops from Iraq without creating a power vacuum that would open up a regional war or vast terrorist safe haven. With the advent of the Islamic State, this plan clearly failed. However, Iran did provide a Shia-led central government that has maintained security for investments and oil outflows (Chart 8). Iranian defenses: Bombing Iran is extremely difficult logistically, and the U.S. did not want to force the country into a corner where asymmetric warfare, like cutting off shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, seemed necessary. Despite growing American oil production, the U.S. will always care about the transit of oil through the Straits of Hormuz, as this impacts global oil prices.8 China's emergence: Strategic threats grew rapidly in Asia while the U.S. was preoccupied in Iraq and Afghanistan. China has emerged as a more technologically advanced and assertive global power that threatens to establish hegemony in the region. The deal with Iran was therefore a crucial piece of President Obama's "Pivot to Asia" strategy. Chart 7U.S. Becoming More Energy Independent Chart 8U.S. Policy Boosts Iraqi And Iranian Oil None of the above will change with Obama's moving on. Nor will the other powers that participated in sanctioning Iran (Germany, France, the U.K., Russia, and China) be convinced to re-impose sanctions now, just as they gain access to Iranian resources and markets. It is also not clear why Trump would seek confrontation with Iran in light of his desire to improve relations with Russia and concentrate U.S. firepower on ISIS - both objectives make Iran the ideal and obvious partner. Trump will therefore begrudgingly agree to the détente with Iran, perhaps after tweaking some aspects of the deal to save face. Meanwhile, it will serve the hawks in both countries if they can go back to calling each other "Satan." Iran itself is comfortable with the current situation, so it does not have an incentive to reverse the deal. It controls almost half of Iraq (and specifically the portion of Iraq that produces oil), its ally Hezbollah is safe in Lebanon, its ally Bashar Assad will win in Syria (more so with Trump in charge!), and its allies in Yemen (Houthi rebels) are a status quo power secure in a mountain fortress in the north of the country. It is hard to see where Trump would dislodge Iranian influence if he sought to do so. The U.S. is a powerful country that could put a lot of resources into rolling back Iranian influence, but the logic for such a move simply does not exist. Trump will also maintain Obama's aloof policy toward Saudi Arabia, which keeps it constrained (Chart 9).9 The country is in some ways the stereotype of the "ungrateful ally" that Trump wants to downgrade. For instance, Trump supported the law allowing victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the kingdom (a law that Obama tried unsuccessfully to veto). He has blamed the Saudis for the rise of ISIS and the failure to take care of Syrian refugees. His primary focus is on preventing terrorists from striking the U.S., and to that end he wants to cooperate with Russia and stabilize the region's regimes. This entails the relative neglect of Sunni groups under Shia rule in Syria and Iraq. Indeed, the few issues where the Saudis will welcome Trump - opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, support for Egypt's military ruler Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and opposition to aggressive democracy promotion - are so far rhetorical, not concrete, commitments. Chart 9Saudi Arabia Sees The U.S. Stepping Back Will Trump get sucked into the region to intervene against ISIS? We do not think so. A bigger risk is Turkey.10 President Recep Erdogan may think that Trump will either be too complacent about Turkish interests in Syria, or that Trump is in fact a "kindred nationalist spirit" who will not prevent Turkey from pursuing its own sphere of influence in Syria and northern Iraq. Trump's foreign policy of "offshore balancing" would call for the U.S. to prevent Turkey from resurrecting any kind of regional empire, especially if it risks a war with Russia and Iran or comes at the cost of regional influence for American allies like the Kurds.11 Turkey will also be starkly at odds on Syria and ISIS. This means Turkey and the U.S. could see already tense relations get substantially worse in 2017. We would not be surprised to see President Trump threaten Erdogan with expulsion from NATO within his first term. Bottom Line: The biggest risk to our view is that Trump rejects the consensus of the intelligence and defense establishment and pushes Iran too far, leading to conflict. We do not think this will happen, but his rhetoric on the nuclear deal has been consistently negative and he seems likely to favor "Middle East hands" for top cabinet positions. He could involve the country in new Middle East entanglements if he does not show discipline in adhering to his non-interventionist preferences - particularly if he overreacts to an attack. Nonetheless, we believe that America's policy of geopolitical deleveraging from the Middle East will continue. Trump may have a mandate to be tough on terrorism from his voters, but he definitely does not have a free hand to commit military resources to the region. Trump And Asia Trump criticized China furiously during the campaign, declaring that he would name China a currency manipulator on his first day in office and threatening to impose a 45% tariff on Chinese imports. However, there is a familiar pattern of China bashing in U.S. presidential elections that leads to no sharp changes in policy.12 Will Trump be different? Some would argue that relations may actually improve, given how bad they already are. First, Trump's chief concern is to fire up the U.S. economy's animal spirits, and that would support China's ailing economy as long as he does not couple his tax cuts and fiscal stimulus with aggressive protectionist measures (Chart 10). Proponents of this view would point out that Trump's tougher measures may be called off when he realizes that the Chinese current account surplus has fallen sharply in recent years (Chart 11), and that the PBoC is propping up the RMB, not suppressing it. Similarly, Trump's China-bashing trade advisor, the former steel executive Dan DiMicco, may not get much traction given that the U.S. has largely shifted to Brazilian steel imports (Chart 12). In short, the U.S. could take a somewhat tougher stance on specific trade spats without provoking a vicious spiral of discriminatory actions. The fact that the U.S. is more exposed than ever to trade with emerging markets only reinforces the idea that it does not want to spark a real trade war (Chart 13). Chart 10A Trump Boom, Sans Protectionism, Would Lift Chinese Growth Chart 11China's Economy Rebalancing Chart 12China Already Lost The Chart 13A Reason To Eschew Protectionism Second, the Obama administration's "Pivot to Asia" and attempts to undermine China's economic influence in the region through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have aggravated China with little substantive gain. By contrast, Trump may emphasize American business access to China over Chinese citizens' freedoms - which could reduce the risk of conflict. He may not go beyond symbolic protectionist moves, like the currency manipulation charge, and meanwhile canceling the never-ratified TPP would be a net gain for China.13 In essence, Trump, despite his populist rhetoric, could prove both pragmatic and willing to inherit the traditional Republican stance of business-oriented positive engagement with China. This is a compelling argument and we take it seriously. But it is not our baseline case. Rather, we think Trump will eventually take concrete populist steps that will mark a departure from U.S. policy in recent memory. As mentioned, it was protectionist blue-collar voters in the Midwest who gave Trump the White House, and he will need to retain their loyalty in coming elections. Moreover, the secular flatlining of American wages and the growth of income inequality have moved the median U.S. voter to the left of the economic spectrum, as we have argued.14 Neo-liberal economic policy has fewer powerful proponents than in the recent past. Thus, in the long run, we expect the grand renegotiation with China to fall short of market hopes, and Sino-American tensions to resume their upward trajectory.15 Why are we so pessimistic? Three main reasons: The "Thucydides Trap": Sino-U.S. tensions are fundamentally driven not by trade disputes but by the U.S.'s fear of China's growing capability and ambition.16 Great conflicts in history have often occurred when a new economic and military power emerged and tried to alter the regional political arrangements set up by the dominant power. This was as true in late nineteenth-century Europe, with the rise of Germany vis-à-vis the U.K. and France (Chart 14), as it was in ancient Greece. The rise of Japan in the first half of the twentieth century had a similar effect in Asia (Chart 15). Trump could, of course, endorse Xi's idea of a "new type of great power relations," which is supposed to avoid this problem. But nobody knows what that would look like, and greater trade openness is the only conceivable foundation for it. Chart 15AThe Disruptive Rise Of Germany Chart 15BThe Disruptive Rise Of Japan China's economic imbalances: A caustic dose of trade remedies from the Trump administration will compound internal economic pressures in China resulting from rampant credit expansion, misallocation of capital, excessive money printing, and capital outflows (Chart 16).17 The combination of internal and external pressures is potentially fatal and China's leaders will fight it. Otherwise, they risk either the fate of the Soviets or of the Asian strongman regimes that succumbed to democracy after embracing capitalism fully. Instead, China will avoid rushing its structural reforms (it is, after all, currently closing its capital account), and protect its consumer market, which it hopes to be the growth engine going forward. This is not a strong basis for the "better deal" that Trump will demand. President Trump will want China to open up further to U.S. manufacturing, tech, and service exports. Economics and the security dilemma: China and the U.S. will not be able to prevent economic tensions from spilling over into broader strategic tensions. Compare the spike in trade tensions with Japan in the 1980s, when Japanese exports to the U.S. peaked and the U.S. strong-armed Japan into appreciating its currency (Chart 17). The U.S. had nurtured Japan and South Korea out of their post-war devastation by running large trade deficits and enabling them to focus on manufacturing exports while minimizing spending on defense. China joined this system in the 1980s and has largely resembled the formal U.S. allies (Chart 18). Given that China has largely followed Japan's path, it was inevitable that the U.S. would eventually lose patience and become more competitive with China. China has seized a greater share of the U.S. market than Japan had done at that time, and its exports are even more important to the U.S. as a share of GDP (Chart 19). Comparing the exchange rates then and now, the Trump administration will be able to argue that China's currency is overdue for appreciation (Chart 20). However, in the 1980s, the U.S. and Japan faced no risk of military conflict - their strategic hierarchy was entirely settled in 1945. The U.S. and China have no such understanding. There is no way of assuring China that U.S. economic pressure is not about strategic dominance. In fact, it is about that. So while China may be cajoled into promising faster reforms - given that its trade surplus with the U.S. is the only thing that stands between it and current account deficits (Chart 21) - nevertheless it will tend to dilute and postpone these reforms for the sake of its own security, putting Trump's resolve to the test. Chart 16Flashing Red Light On China's Economy Chart 17The U.S. Forced Structural Changes On Japan Chart 18Asia Sells, America Rules Chart 19The U.S. Will Get Tougher On China Trade Chart 20China Drags Its Feet On RMB Appreciation Chart 21A Reason For China To Kowtow Trump's victory may also heighten Beijing's fears that it is being surrounded by the U.S. and its partners. That is because Trump will make the following developments more likely: Better Russian relations: From a bird's eye view, Trump's thaw with Putin could mark an inversion of Nixon's thaw with Mao. China is the only power today that can stand a comparison with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The U.S. at least needs to make sure the Sino-Russian relationship does not become too warm (Chart 22).18 Russo-Japanese peace treaty: The two sides are already working on a treaty, never signed after World War II. Aside from their historic territorial dispute, the U.S. has been the main impediment by demanding Japan help penalize Russia after the invasion of Ukraine. Yet negotiations have advanced regardless, and Japanese air force scrambles against Russia have fallen while those against China have continued to spike (Chart 23). The best chance for a deal since the 1950s is now, with Abe and Putin both solidly in power until 2018. This would reduce Russian dependency on China for energy markets and capital investment, and free up Japan's security establishment to focus on China and North Korea. American allies are not defecting: The United States armed forces are deeply embedded in the Asia Pacific region and setbacks to the "pivot" policy should not be mistaken for setbacks to U.S. power in the absolute.19 U.S. allies like Thailand, the Philippines, and (soon) South Korea are in the headlines for seeking to warm up ties with China, but there is no hard evidence that they will turn away from the U.S. security umbrella. Rather, the pivot reassured them of U.S. commitment, giving them the flexibility to focus on boosting their economies, which means sending emissaries to Beijing. The problem is that Beijing knows this and will therefore still suspect that a "containment" strategy is underfoot over time. Better Indian relations: The Bush administration made considerable progress in improving ties with India. Trump also seems India-friendly, which would be supported by better ties with Russia and Iran. India could therefore become a greater obstacle to China's influence in South and Southeast Asia. Chart 22Energy A Solid Foundation For Sino-Russian Ties Chart 23Japan's Strategic Predicament From the above, we can draw three main conclusions: The U.S. role in the Pacific will determine global geopolitical stability under the Trump administration. The primary question is whether China is willing and able to accede to enough of Trump's demands to ensure that the U.S. and China have at least "one more fling," a further extension to the post-1979 trade relationship. It is possible that China is simply unable to do so and in the face of any concrete sanctions by Trump, will batten down the hatches, rally people around the flag, and shore up the state-led economy. There may be a tactical U.S.-China "improvement" over the next year - relative to the worst fears of trade war under Trump - but it will not be durable. The year 2017 will be the year of Trump's "honeymoon," while Xi Jinping will be focused on internal politics ahead of the Communist Party's crucial National Party Congress in the fall.20 Thus, after Trump gives China a "shot across the bow," like charging it with currency manipulation, the two sides will likely settle down at the negotiating table and send positive signals to the world about their time-tried ability to manage tensions. Financial markets will see through Trump's initially symbolic actions and begin to behave as if nothing has changed in U.S.-China relations. However, this calm will be deceiving, since economic and security tensions will eventually rise to the surface again, likely in a more disruptive way than ever before. China's periphery will be decisive, especially the Korean peninsula. The Koreas could become the locus of East Asia tensions for two reasons. First, North Korea's nuclear weaponization has reached a level that is truly alarming to the U.S. and Japan.21 New sanctions, if enforced, have real teeth because they target commodity exports (Chart 24). The problem is that China is unlikely to enforce them and South Korean politics are likely to turn more China-friendly and more pacific toward the North with the impending change of ruling parties. This will leave the U.S. and Japan with legitimate security grievances but less of an ability to change the outcome through non-military means. That is an arrangement ripe for confrontation. Separately, China's worsening relations with Taiwan, Vietnam's resistance to China's power-grab in the South China Sea, and conflicts between India and Pakistan will be key barometers of regional stability vis-à-vis China. Chart 24Will China Cut Imports From Here? The risk to this view, again, is that a Middle East crisis could distract the Trump administration. This would mark an excellent opportunity for China to build on its growing regional sway, and it would delay our baseline view that the Asia Pacific is now the chief source of geopolitical risk in the world. Investment Conclusions There is no geopolitical risk premium associated with Sino-American tensions. Our clients, colleagues, and friends in the industry are at a loss when we ask how one should hedge tensions in the region. This is a major risk for investors as the market will have to price emerging tensions quickly. Broadly speaking, Sino-American tensions will reinforce the ongoing de-globalization. If the top two global economies are at geopolitical loggerheads, they are more likely to see their geopolitical tensions spill over to the economic sphere. Unwinding globalization implies that inflation will make a comeback, as the reduction in flows of goods, services, capital, and people gradually increases supply constraints. This is primarily bad for bonds, which have enjoyed a bull market for the past three decades that we see reversing.22 At the same time, these trends suggest that investors should favor consumer-oriented sectors and countries relative to their export-reliant counterparts, and small-to-medium sized businesses over externally-exposed multinationals. BCA Geopolitical Strategy's long S&P 600 / short S&P 100 trade is up 7.4% since inceptionon November 9. Finally, these trends, combined with the associated geopolitical risks of various powers struggling for elbow room, warrant a continuation of the Geopolitical Strategy theme of favoring Developed Markets over Emerging Markets, which has made a 45.5% return since inception in November 2012. The centrality of China risk only reinforces this view. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see our initial discussion of Trump's foreign policy, "U.S. Election Update: Trump, Presidential Powers, And Investment Implications," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization: All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, and, more recently, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "In Focus - Cold War Redux?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "It's A Long Way Down From The 'Wall Of Worry,'" dated March 2014, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia: To Buy Or Not To Buy?" dated March 20, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia-West Showdown: The West, Not Putin, Is The 'Wild Card,'" dated July 31, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Russia's Trilemma And The Coming Power Paralysis," dated February 21, 2012, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "End Of An Era For Oil And The Middle East," dated April 8, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Turkey: Strategy After The Attempted Coup," dated July 18, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see John J. Meirsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, "The Case For Offshore Balancing: A Superior U.S. Grand Strategy," Foreign Affairs, July/August 2016, available at www.foreignaffairs.com. 12 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy, "China As A Currency Manipulator?" dated November 24, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 13 One of his foreign policy advisors, former CIA head James Woolsey, has floated the idea that the U.S. could turn positive about Chinese initiatives like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the One Belt One Road program to link Eurasian economies. Please see Woolsey, "Under Donald Trump, the US will accept China's rise - as long as it doesn't challenge the status quo," South China Morning Post, dated November 10, 2016, available at www.scmp.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Joint Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see Graham Allison, "The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?" The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, available at www.theatlantic.com. 17 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Can Russia Import Productivity From China?" dated June 29, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Philippine Elections: Taking The Shine Off Reform," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of November 30, 2016. The model further augmented the overweight to the U.S. despite the fact that the U.S. had already been the largest overweight, at the expenses of the Euro Area. Japan's underweight is reduced again, albeit slightly. The model continues to dislike Canada and Australia even though the two countries have outperformed year to date. U.K. remains the largest underweight (Table 1). Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Chart 1, Chart 2 and Chart 3, the large overweight of the U.S. versus the non-U.S. (Level 1 model) worked well in November with 49 bps of outperformance versus the MSCI World benchmark, the level 2 (allocation within the 11 non-U.S. countries), however, underperformed significantly, resulting the overall model to underperform by 16 bps. Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) For more details on the models, please see the January 29th, 2016 Special Report "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model." http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of November 30, 2016. Table 3AllocationsTable 4Performance Since Going Live Chart 4Overall Model Performance The momentum component has shifted Consumer Discretionary from underweight to overweight. For mode details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Senior Analyst patrick@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Dear Client, This issue of BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy features our 2017 Outlook for Bulks and Base Metals. The evolution of China's economy will, as always, be critical to these markets, given that country's outsized role in iron ore, steel and base metals. We are broadly neutral the complex, and, with the exception of the nickel market, see supply and demand relatively balanced. That said, the potential for price spikes - e.g., copper, where spare capacity is shrinking - and for monetary and fiscal policy errors to spill into these markets keeps downside price risk elevated. Next week, we will publish our 2017 Outlook for Energy Markets, with special attention to the oil market. As expected, OPEC and Russia agreed to cut production. As we went to press, WTI and Brent crude oil prices were up ~ 8.5% on the news. We will take profits today on our Long February 2017 Brent $50/bbl Calls vs. Short February 2017 $55/bbl Calls, which was up 73.6% basis Wednesday's close when we went to press. We remain long August 2017 WTI vs. Short November 2017 WTI futures in anticipation of a backwardated forward curve in 2017H2; as of Wednesday's close, this position returned 76.39% since November 3, when we recommended the exposure. Our 2017 Precious Metals and Agricultural outlooks will be published in the following weeks. We will finish with an outlook for commodities as an asset class in 2017 at year-end. We trust you will find these reports informative and useful for your investing and year-ahead planning. Kindest regards, Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President The monetary and fiscal stimulus that massively boosted China's housing market this year will wind down, bringing an end to the run-up in iron ore, steel and base metals prices. While we expect "reflationary" policies to continue going into the Communist Party Congress next fall, when new leadership roles will be announced, we do not expect anything along the lines of the surge in policy stimulus seen earlier this year: Unwinding and controlling property-market excesses and high debt levels will limit policymakers' desire to turbo-charge the housing market again, limiting the boost such policies provide. We are downgrading our tactically bullish view on iron ore to neutral. Our out-of-consensus bullish call was proven correct with a 43% rally in iron ore prices within the past eight weeks.1 Strategically, we retain a bearish bias, as rising iron ore supply may overwhelm the market again in 2017H2. We remain tactically neutral and strategically bearish steel. Low steel inventories and production disruptions caused by China's recently launched environmental inspection program likely will continue to support steel prices in the near term. However, persistently high steel output and falling demand from the Chinese property sector should eventually knock down prices in 2017H2. We remain neutral copper going into 2017, expecting Chinese reflationary stimulus to continue along with a concerted effort to slow the housing boom in that country. This will still support real demand for copper, but will reduce demand from new construction. Manufacturing will play a larger role on the demand side next year, while a stronger USD could limit price appreciation. We still believe nickel will outperform zinc over a one-year time horizon. We are bullish nickel prices, both tactically and strategically, as we expect a supply deficit to widen on rising stainless steel demand and falling nickel ore supply in 2017. For zinc, we remain tactically neutral and strategically bearish. We expect zinc supply to rise considerably in response to current high prices. For the global aluminum market, we remain tactically bullish and strategically neutral. Supply shortages will likely persist ex-China over the next three to six months. We have three investment strategies, including long iron ore/short steel futures, long nickel/short zinc futures, and buying aluminum on weaknesses. Feature Iron Ore & Steel: Limited Upside In 2017 A Quick Recap Back in early October, we wrote an in-depth report on global iron ore and steel markets in which we made an out-of-consensus tactically bullish call on iron ore, expecting the price to reach the April high of $68.70/MT in 2016Q4. Our prediction was realized, with iron ore prices surging 43% to a two-year high of $79.81/MT on November 11 (Chart 1, panel 1). Although the steel market has been much stronger than the assessment driving our tactically neutral stance indicated earlier in the quarter, our call that iron ore would outperform steel in the near term was correct: Steel prices rose 21% during the same period of time - only half of the iron ore price rally (Chart 1, panel 1). Over the past two months, the rally occurred in both futures and spot markets, and in the markets globally (Chart 1, panels 2 and 3). Chart 1Iron Ore: Downgrade To Tactically Neutral Chart 2Steel: Remain Tactically Neutral The 2017 Outlook First, we downgrade our tactically bullish view on iron ore to neutral, as China likely will import less iron ore in 2017Q1 (Chart 2, panel 1). China has imposed stricter environmental regulations on its domestic metals industry since 2014 to control pollution. The government currently is sending environmental inspection teams to major steel-producing provinces to check how well the steel producers are complying with state environment rules. Many steel-producing factories were closed this year, due to environmental violations. This will constrain growth in Chinese steel output in the near term (Chart 2, panel 2). Between 2011 - 15, the state-owned Xinhua news agency states Chinese steel capacity has been reduced by 90 million MT; authorities want to cut as much as 150 million MT by 2020, including 45 million MT this year.2 Chinese steel production generally falls in January and February as workers are celebrating the Chinese Spring Festival - the most important festival for the Chinese. Iron ore inventories at major Chinese ports are still high (Chart 2, panel 3). Given iron ore prices have already rallied more than 100% since last December and steel demand outlook remains uncertain next year, most steel producers likely will choose to push off purchases into 2017Q2 or later. While China may slow its iron ore purchases next year, global iron ore supply is set to increase in 2017 as many projects will come on stream. The world's biggest iron ore project, Vale's S11D, which has a capacity of 90 million metric tons (mmt) per year, is expected to ship its first ore in January 2017. Moreover, with iron ore prices above $70/MT, global top iron ore companies with low production costs can be expected to sell as much as they can to maximize their profit, given their all-in production costs for high-quality iron ore (62% Fe) typically are between $30 and $35/MT.3 That said, we are not bearish on iron ore prices in the near term. We prefer to be neutral. Iron ore prices will have pullbacks, but the downside may be also limited in 2017H1. Chinese domestic iron ore production is still in a deep contraction (Chart 2, panel 4). Plus, most steel producing companies prefer high-quality ore from overseas over the domestic low-quality ore. In addition, almost all steel companies in China are profitable at present, which means Chinese steel production will rise after the Spring Festival holidays. All of these factors will support iron ore prices. Chart 3Iron Ore & Steel: Strategically Bearish Second, we retain our tactically neutral view on steel. Chinese steel demand was lifted by China's expansionary monetary and fiscal policies this year - which we have dubbed China's "reflationary" policy - which included reductions in its central bank's policy rate and reserve requirement ratio, and implementation of additional infrastructure projects (Chart 3). This was the driving force for the sharp steel price rally this year. The big question is how sustainable Chinese steel demand growth will be? This will be highly dependent on the Chinese government's decisions and actions. More than a third of steel demand is accounted for by the property market, of which some 70% is residential property.4 Mortgages accounted for approximately 71% of all new loans in August of this year, down from 90% in July, according to Reuters.5 This loan growth powered the iron ore and steel markets this past 12 - 18 months and China's credit-to-GDP ratio to extremely high levels. The OECD recently observed, "The high pace of debt accumulation was sustained despite weaker domestic demand growth. This raises concerns about the underlying quality of new credit, disorderly corporate defaults and the possible extent to which it has been used to support financial asset prices. Residential property prices in some of the largest cities have risen by over 30% year-on-year, although price growth in smaller cities has been much more modest. The price gains have been partly driven by loose monetary policy and ample credit availability as well as reduced land supply."6 Based on our calculations, Chinese steel demand started showing positive yoy growth in July and, so far, had posted four consecutive months of positive yoy growth from July to October. In September and October, the growth was accelerated to 8.3% and 6.6%, respectively, a clear improvement from the 0.8% yoy growth registered in July. The growth may last another three to six months but could peak sooner, if there are no new stimulus plans announced by the government. In addition to the housing sector, China's auto industry also saw significant demand growth. As China cut the sale taxes on small passenger vehicles from 10% to 5% this year, Chinese car sales jumped 13.6% yoy for the first 10 months of 2016, a significant improvement from a 5.7% yoy contraction in the same period of last year. If the government lets the tax cut expire at year-end, Chinese auto production may decline in 2017, which will weaken Chinese steel demand. In the meantime, Chinese steel producers will keep boosting production next year, which likely will limit the upside for steel prices. That said, current steel inventories in China are still low. According to the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA), steel inventories at large and medium steel enterprises fell 9% from mid-September to late October. This probably will limit the downside for steel prices. Third, we retain a strategic bearish view on both iron ore and steel. If there is no additional reflationary stimulus deployed in 2017, we expect Chinese steel demand to weaken. In the meantime, Chinese steel producers will keep boosting their production. Let these two factors run nine to 12 months, and we believe they will be sufficient to knock down both steel and iron ore prices. Our research last year concluded the Chinese property sector is structurally down-trending.7 Given that the property market is the biggest end user of steel in China, accounting for about 35% of total steel demand, we are strategically bearish on steel and iron ore prices. How To Make Money In The Iron Ore & Steel Market? Chart 4Take Profit On Long ##br##Iron Ore/ShortSteel Rebar Trade We went long May/17 iron ore futures in Dalian Futures Exchange in China and short May/17 steel rebar futures in Shanghai Futures Exchange on October 6 (Chart 4). Both contracts are denominated in RMB. The relative trade gives us a return of 18.1% in two months. We are taking profits with this publication, but we may re-initiate this pair trade on pullbacks. Risks If China deploys additional fiscal and monetary stimulus next year, similar in scope to this year's stimulus, we will re-evaluate our view accordingly. If global iron ore production is less than the market expects we could see further rallies in iron ore prices. Should this occur, we will re-examine our market call, as well. Copper: Market Is Balanced; Little Flex On Supply Side The reflationary stimulus that powered China's property markets - and drove demand for iron ore and steel higher - also propelled copper prices to dizzying heights in 2016H2. We do not expect this juggernaut to continue, and instead expect copper to trade sideways next year as global supply and demand stay relatively balanced (Chart 5). China accounts for roughly half of global refined copper demand (Chart 6). Manufacturing activity has the greatest impact on prices: A 1% increase in China's PMI translates to a 1.8% increase in LME copper prices (Chart 7). Chart 5Copper Market Is In Balance Chart 6World Copper Markets Are Balanced Chart 7China Demand Will Remain Key For Copper China's property market accounts for about a third of global copper demand in used in construction, according to the CME Group, which trades copper on its COMEX exchange. A 1% increase floor-space started in China leads to a 0.3% increase in LME copper prices (Chart 8). The surge in demand from the housing market lifted China's copper demand over the past 12 - 18 months, as credit creation in the form of home-mortgage loans expanded at a rapid clip (Chart 9). We expect the Chinese government to continue to try to rein in a booming property market, which has seen mortgage-loan growth of 90% p.a. recently. If the government is successful, this will limit price gains for copper next year. If not, the bubble will continue to expand in large tier-1 and -2 cities in China, making the copper rally's fundamental support tenous to say the least. Chart 8China PMIs and USD TWI Drive LME Prices Chart 9Mortgage Growth Likely Slows in 2017 This drives our expectation that the real economic activity in China - chiefly manufacturing - will be the dominant fundamental on the demand side for copper next year. On the supply side, we expect 2.65% yoy growth in refined copper production, just slightly above the International Copper Study Group's 2% estimate. Company and press reports cite a reduced mine capacity additions, lower ore content in mined output, and labor unrest as reasons supply side growth is slowing. Our balances reflect a convergence of supply and demand for next year, and also highlight the reduced flexibility in the system to respond to unplanned outages. For this reason, the global copper market could be prone to upside price risk in the event of a major unplanned production outage. Watch Out For USD Strength Copper, like all of the base metals, is sensitive to the path taken by the USD. We continue to expect the Fed to lift rates next month and a couple of times next year. This most likely will lift the USD 10% or so over the next 12 months. This would be bearish for base metals, particularly copper, since 92% of global demand for the red metal occurs outside the U.S. Our modeling indicates a 1% increase in the broad USD trade-weighted index leads to a 3.5% decrease in LME copper prices. A stronger USD will raise the local-currency cost of commodities ex-U.S. EM demand would suffer, which would slow the principal source of growth for base metals. Metals producers' ex-U.S. with little or no exposure to USD debt-service obligations would see local-currency operating costs fall. At the margin, this will lead to increased supply. These effects would combine to push commodity prices lower, producing a deflationary blowback to the U.S. Nickel & Zinc: Going Different Ways In 2017? Zinc has outperformed nickel significantly for the past six years. This year alone, zinc prices have shot up over 90% since January, almost doubling the 50% rally in nickel prices for the same period of time (Chart 10, panel 1). The nickel/zinc price ratio has declined to its lowest level since 1998 (Chart 10, panel 2). Will nickel continue underperforming zinc into 2017? Or will the trend reverse next year? We believe the latter has a higher probability. Tactically, we are bullish nickel and neutral zinc. Strategically, we are bullish nickel and bearish zinc.8 Zinc's bull story has been well-known for the past several years, and nickel's oversupplied bear story also has been commented on in the news. However, both markets' fundamentals are changing. Based on World Bureau of Metal Statistics (WBMS) data, for the first nine months of this year, the supply deficit in the global nickel market was at its highest level since 1996. Meanwhile, the global zinc market was already in balance (Chart 10, panels 3 and 4). Chart 10Nickel Likely To Outperform Zinc In 2017 Chart 11Nickel Has More Positive Fundamentals Than Zinc Both nickel and zinc markets are experiencing ore shortages (Chart 11, panels 1 and 2). For the nickel market, the ore shortage was mainly due to the Indonesian ore export ban, and Philippines' suspension of nickel miners for violating that country's environmental laws. For the zinc market, the ore shortage arose because of several big mines' depletion, years of underinvestment, and mine suspensions due to low prices late last year. The nickel ore shortage will become acute as the Indonesian ban remains in place and the Philippines' government becomes stricter on domestic mining operations. However, for zinc, most of the output loss occurred last year, and actually may be restored to the market in the near future. Zinc prices reached $2,811/MT last year as the market was adjusting to lost supply - the highest level since March 2008. In terms of demand, nickel exhibits much stronger demand growth versus zinc (Chart 11, panels 3 and 4). In addition, China's auto sales tax-cut policy will expire at year-end, which may cause Chinese auto production to fall in 2017. This will affect zinc much more than nickel, as less galvanized steel will be needed next year if Chinese car production falls. Investment Strategies We sold Dec/17 zinc at $2,400/MT on November 3, and the trade was stopped out at $2,500/MT with a 4% loss (Chart 12, panel 1). Zinc prices jumped 11.5% in four trading days in late November, which we believe was mainly driven by speculative buying. Nonetheless, in the near term, global zinc supply is still on the tight side, and zinc inventories are low (Chart 12, panel 2). Zinc prices could rally more in the near term. We were looking to go Long Dec/17 LME nickel vs. Short Dec/17 LME zinc if the ratio drops to 4.3 since mid-November (Chart 13, panel 1). We also suggested that if the order gets filled, put a stop-loss for the ratio at 4.15. Chart 12Zinc: Stay Tactically Neutral Chart 13Risks To Long Nickel/Short Zinc On November 25, the order was filled at the closing price ratio of 4.17. But unfortunately the ratio declined to 4.08 on the next trading day (November 28), based on the closing price ratio, which triggered our predefined stop-loss level with a 2.2% loss. The ratio was trading at 4.17 again as of November 29. As the market is so volatile, we recommend initiating this relative trade if it drops below 4.05 to compensate the risk. If the order gets filled, we suggest putting a 5% stop-loss level for the relative trade. After all, nickel prices could still have pullbacks, as global nickel inventories still are elevated (Chart 13, panel 2). Risks Our strategically bearish view on zinc will be wrong if global zinc ore supply does not increase as much as we expect, or global zinc demand still has robust growth in 2017. Our strategically bullish view on nickel will be wrong if Indonesian refined nickel output increases quickly, resulting in a smaller supply deficit than the market expects. However, due to power shortages, poor infrastructure and funding problems, development on many of the smelters and stainless steel plants once envisioned for the nickel market have been delayed. We believe these problems will continue to be headwinds for Indonesian nickel output growth, and will continue to restrict supply growth going forward. Aluminum: Cautiously Bullish In 2017 Chart 14Aluminum: Remain Tactically Bullish ##br## And Strategically Neutral Sharp supply cuts combined with tight inventories have pushed aluminum prices higher this year. Prices in China have rallied more than 50% so far this year, which was more than double the 20% rise in the global aluminum market (Chart 14, panel 1). This probably indicates a tighter Chinese domestic market than the global (ex-China) market. Looking forward, we remain tactically bullish on LME aluminum prices and neutral on SHFE aluminum prices.9 The supply shortage will likely persist ex-China over next three to six months. Global aluminum production has declined faster than demand so far this year. Based on the WBMS data, global aluminum output was still in a deep contraction in September (Chart 14, panel 2). Even though China's operating capacity has been rising every month so far this year, Chinese total aluminum output for the first 10 months was still 1.1% less than the same period last year. In addition, considering the possible output loss due to the Spring Festival in late January, we believe it will take another three to six months for China to meet its own domestic demand and inventory restocking. Extremely tight domestic inventories should limit the downside of SHFE aluminum prices (Chart 14, panel 3) as the market adjusts on the supply side. We think there is more upside for LME aluminum prices, as the supply shortage will likely persist ex-China over next three to six months. Currently, Chinese aluminum prices are about 18% higher than the LME prices (both are in USD terms), which will likely limit the supply coming from China's exports to the rest of world. Strategically, we are neutral LME aluminum prices and bearish on SHFE aluminum prices. Currently, about 85% of the China's aluminum operating capacity is making money. With new low-cost capacity and more idled capacity coming back on line, profitable Chinese smelters will continue boosting their aluminum production to maximize profits. This, over a longer term like nine months to one year, should eventually spill over to the global market. Investment strategy Chart 15Still Look To Buy Aluminum We recommended buying the Mar/17 LME aluminum contract (Chart 15) if it falls to $1,640/MT (current: $1,721/MT). We expect the contract price to rise to $1,900/MT over the next three to five months. If our order is filled, we suggest a 5% stop-loss. Risks Prices at both the SHFE and LME may come under intense pressure if aluminum producers in China increases their output quickly, even at a small loss, in order to create jobs and revenue for local governments. If global aluminum demand falters in 2017 while supply is rising, we will revisit our strategically neutral view on LME aluminum prices. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report for iron ore and steel "Global Iron Ore And Steel Markets: Is The Rally Over?," dated October 6, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. In this report, we are using Metal Bulletin iron ore price delivered to Qingdao port in China as our iron ore reference price. 2 Please see "N. China city cuts 32 mln tonnes of steel capacity" published October 30, 2016, by Xinhua's online service, xinhuanet.com. 3 Please see "CHART: The breakeven iron ore prices for major miners in 2016," published June 7, 2016, by Business Insider Australia. 4 Please see "China Resources Quarterly, Southern spring ~ Northern autumn 2016," published by the Australian Department of Industry, Innovation and Science and Westpac, particularly this discussion on p. 4, "The real estate sector." 5 Please see "China August new loans well above expectations on mortgage boom," published by Reuters September 14, 2016. 6 Please see the OECD Economic Outlook, Volume 2016 Issue 2, Chapter 1, entitled "General Assessment of the Macroeconomic Situation," p. 44, under the sub-head "Rapid debt accumulation risks instability in EMEs." The IMF also expressed concern over rising debt levels supporting the real-estate boom in China, particularly in the larger cities, noting, "Credit and financial sector leverage continue to rise faster than GDP, and state-owned enterprises in sectors with excess capacity and real estate continue to absorb a major share of credit flow. The deviation of credit growth from its long-term trend, the so-called credit overhang--a key cross-country indicator of potential crisis--is estimated somewhere in the range of 22-27 percent of GDP..., which is very high by international comparison." Please see the IMF's Global Financial Stability Report for October 2016, "Fostering Stability in a Low-Growth, Low-Rate Era," p. 35, under the sub-heading "China: Growing Credit and Complexities." 7 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report "Chinese Property Market: A Structural Downtrend Just Started," dated June 4, 2015 and "China Property Market Q&As," dated July 2, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Oil Production Cut, Trump Election Will Stoke Inflation Expectations," dated November 17, 2016 and "The Lithium Battery Supply Chain: Efficient Exposure To Electric-Vehicle Market," dated October 27, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Market Saturation Likely In Asia, If KSA - Russia Fail To Curb Oil Production," dated November 10, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

Highlights Despite the static headline GDP figures, most of our indicators suggest Chinese growth momentum has improved since the second quarter, particularly in the industrial sector. A dollar overshoot, domestic housing policy tightening and potential policy mistakes by the Chinese authorities need to be monitored for potential growth disappointments. The rally in commodity prices reflects improving Chinese demand, but it has ignored the surging dollar. Chinese H shares are a safer play on Chinese reflation and growth improvement. Feature Our recent conversations with clients suggest that global investors' concerns over China have slightly abated, as various economic numbers have shown improvement. Nonetheless, investors remain highly sceptical about China's macro situation, raising questions ranging from "traditional" distrust of China's economic data to the latest worries of a "trade war" with the U.S. under President Donald Trump. We dedicate this week's report to addressing some common issues that we have been discussing with clients of late. What Is The Actual GDP Growth In China? In Recent Quarters, It Seems To Be Holding In A "Too-Good-To-Be-True" Tight Range? Chinese real GDP growth has been 6.7% for the past three consecutive quarters, right in the middle of the government's official target of 6.5-7%. This seemingly incredible stability has stoked long-held suspicions among investors about the reliability of Chinese economic data. While we do not claim to have the ultimate insider story on official Chinese statistics, and it is certainly possible that the macro numbers are "smoothed out" to hide otherwise greater volatility in economic reality, it is also possible that stable headline numbers overshadow bigger underlying fluctuations among different sectors (Chart 1). Chart 1Greater Volatility Underneath ##br##Stable GDP For example, while real GDP growth has stayed at 6.7% since Q1 this year, there has been some fluctuations in both the industrial and service sectors. Within the service sector, the financial industry has had a major downturn, with nominal growth falling from 10.9% in Q1 to 8.2% in the last quarter, partly due to last year's base effect of the stock market boom-bust. The real estate sector, on the other hand, has been on the mend, with growth strengthening from 14% in Q1 to 16.3%. Regardless, the exact GDP growth figures rarely matter from an investor's perspective. What is more important is the growth trajectory and policy implications. On this front, most of our indicators suggest growth momentum has improved since the second quarter of the year, particularly in the industrial sector. A strong recovery in manufacturing-sensitive indicators such as railway freight, heavy machine sales and electricity consumption (Chart 2). Continued acceleration in profit growth, in both the overall industrial sector and among listed firms.1 Further improvement in pricing power and producer prices. Producer price deflation that lasted for over four years ended in September, compared with 5.3% deflation in January. Looking forward, we expect the economy to continue to improve, even though some of the high-flying variables may begin to moderate. On the policy front, the authorities will likely enter a wait-and-see mode, especially on interest rates. Our model signals that the central bank's interest rate cuts have likely come to an end, unless the economy relapses again (Chart 3). This is also reflected in the pickup in interest rates in the bond market. We will further explore China's growth outlook, policy orientation and investment implications for the New Year in the first week of 2017. Chart 2Broad Improvement In##br## Industrial Indicators Chart 3No More Rate Cuts, ##br##For Now There Appears To Be Growing Acceptance In The Market That China Will Not Suffer A Hard Landing. What Are You Monitoring To Gauge The Growth Risk? We have not been in the "hard landing" camp, and have been anticipating a "rocky bottoming" process in Chinese growth for the year.2 Despite enormous financial volatility in January associated with the domestic stock market and the RMB, growth has largely played out as we anticipated. We expect the economy to remain resilient, but are watching some pressure points that could lead to disappointments. The first is the RMB, which has been depreciating notably against the dollar in recent weeks, as the dollar uptrend has resumed with vigour. In our view, a strong dollar is one of the key risks, as it not only generates downward pressure on the CNY/USD cross rate, on which the market tends to focus closely, but also halts the "stealth" depreciation of the RMB in trade-weighted terms, which reduces the reflationary benefits of a weaker exchange rate on the Chinese economy (Chart 4). In other words, a weak CNY/USD and a strong trade-weighted RMB is a poor combination for both financial markets and the macro economy.3 So far, the CNY/USD decline appears orderly, and we doubt the greenback will massively overshoot against all major currencies within a short period without causing growth difficulties in the U.S. However, the situation should be closely monitored and continuously assessed. The second is housing policy tightening, which the authorities have re-imposed since October to check rapid gains in home prices. So far, the tightening measures have not led to a significant slowdown in home sales in major cities: Daily home sales in the major cities that we track have broken out to new record highs (Chart 5). However, new housing supply has already been very weak, which together with robust sales could lead to even lower housing inventory and a further spike in home prices. We maintain guarded optimism on China's housing construction, as we discussed in detail in our previous report.4 The risk is that unyielding home price gains will force the Chinese authorities to up the ante on tightening, which could lead to a sudden deterioration in housing activity. In this vein, price moderation should be good news from policymakers' perspectives, as well as for the overall economy. Chart 4The RMB: Weak Or Strong? Chart 5Monitor Housing Activity Finally, as we have argued repeatedly, China's growth difficulties in recent years have had a lot to do with the excessively tight policy environment post the global financial crisis - a policy mistake that compounded deflationary pressures in the economy, which had already been suffering from weak external demand. Despite budding improvement in the economy, China's overall macro environment remains highly challenging, and policy mistakes that undermine aggregate demand will prove extremely costly. In this vein, any broader attempt to tighten policies, hasten administrative enforcement to de-lever or prematurely withdraw fiscal support on infrastructure construction will prove counterproductive. A more recent risk is how China deals with the potential protectionist threat from the U.S. under President Donald Trump.5 Our view is that China should avoid escalating trade tensions with tic-for-tac retaliations that could further complicate the growth outlook. As far as the markets are concerned, Chinese equities appear to have begun to price in a lower "China risk premium." Forward P/E ratios for both A shares and H shares have been rising since early this year, likely a reflection of investors' easing anxiety on China's macro conditions (Chart 6). Nonetheless, Chinese stocks' forward P/E ratios remain well below other major markets and the global average, and the risk premium in Chinese equities is still substantially higher than historical norms. Beyond near-term volatility, we expect the risk premium in Chinese stocks to continue to revert to the mean, leading to multiples expansion and further price gains. At minimum, Chinese equities should outpace global and EM benchmarks. There Has Been A Massive Rally In Some Industrial Commodity Prices In China. Is This Driven By Speculative Frenzy? How Much Does The Commodities Rally Reflect Chinese Demand? Industrial commodity prices have rebounded sharply in both the Chinese domestic spot markets and various derivatives exchanges. For some products, prices have gone parabolic, and there is little doubt that these extreme moves cannot be fully explained by fundamental factors (Chart 7). Nonetheless, it is also well known that commodities in general are subject to volatile price fluctuations, as they are extremely sensitive to marginal shifts in the supply-demand balance due to very low price elasticity among both producers and end users. Therefore, it is impossible, and rather meaningless, to precisely detangle speculative forces and fundamental factors. Chart 6Risk Premium Will Continue ##br##To Mean Revert Chart 7No Clear Evidence Of Commodity ##br## Speculative Frenzy That said, from a macro perspective, a few observations are in order: There does not appear to be a particularly high level of over-trading and speculative activity involved this time around compared with historical norms. Futures transactions this year have been hovering at close to record low levels, despite sharp prices gains in numerous products. Even if prices decline sharply, the impact on the financial system should be negligible because of very low investor participation. Broad-based improvement in numerous industry-sensitive indicators shown in Chart 2 on page 2 suggest the gains in commodity prices are at least partially attributable to improving demand rather than purely driven by speculative frenzy. In fact, improving Chinese demand is also reflected in a firmer global shipping rate. The Baltic Dry Index has almost quadrupled since its February lows, which hardly has anything to do with Chinese retail speculators (Chart 8, top panel). Massive price gains in some commodities such as steel and coal have been partially driven by the Chinese authorities' attempts early this year to "de-capacity" the two sectors, with aggressive efforts to cut idle capacity and reduce domestic production. The self-imposed restrictions together with improving demand have led to sharp price gains and a significant rebound in imports of related products (Chart 8, bottom panel). This confirms our view that the overcapacity issue in the Chinese industrial sector has been overestimated.6 Moreover, regulators' control on domestic supply has been relaxed, which will likely lead to rising domestic production in due course - this bodes well for Chinese domestic business activity, but poorly for the prices of related products. Historically, commodity prices have been positively correlated with China's growth trajectory, and negatively correlated with the trade-weighted dollar (Chart 9). Currently, the commodities rally clearly reflects regained strength in Chinese industrial activity, but has ignored the recent strength of the greenback, leading to a glaring divergence that has been very rare in recent history. Chart 8More Signs Of ##br## Improving Demand Chart 9Macro Drivers And Commodity Prices: ##br##Mind The Gap It remains to be seen how such a divergence will eventually converge. Our hunch is that the dollar will likely continue to rally in the near term, which means commodity prices could converge to the downside. Our commodities team has upgraded base metals from underweight earlier this year on China's reflation efforts, and is currently neutral on the asset class. What is more certain, however, is that China's reflation efforts and growth improvement should also lift Chinese H shares, but the price gains of H shares so far have been much more muted. Earlier this year we recommended going long Chinese H shares against the CRB index, which so far has been flat. We are still comfortable holding this position. The bottom line is that we do not advocate chasing the current rally in base metals. Chinese H shares are a safer play on Chinese reflation and growth improvement. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Stocks: Between Domestic Improvement And External Uncertainty", dated November 10, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "2016: A Choppy Bottoming", dated January 6, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The RMB's Near-Term Dilemma And Long-Term Ambition", dated October 20, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010", dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China As A Currency Manipulator?", dated November 24, 2016; and "China-U.S. Trade Relations: The Big Picture", dated November 17, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Myth Of Chinese Overcapacity", dated October 6, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights An Italian referendum 'no' is not really revolting. Some people are voting no for no change to the current constitution's vital checks and balances. Lean against any knee-jerk widening of the Italian sovereign yield spread versus France that followed a no vote. Lean against any knee-jerk rally in Italian banks that followed a yes vote. A 50bps spike in the JPM Global Government Bond Yield in just 3 months is normally a bad omen for risk-asset performance. Retain a cautious stance to risk-assets on a 3-month horizon. Feature After shock victories for Brexit and Donald Trump at the polls, a 'no' vote in Italy's December 4 referendum on constitutional reform would be the next worrying sign of a growing grassroots revolt against the establishment. Or would it? An Italian 'No' Is Not Really Revolting The votes for Brexit or Donald Trump were clearly votes for change. At first glance, an Italian no would also look like a revolt, with the potential to trigger political uncertainty and instability in the euro area's third largest economy. Chart of the WeekItalian Banks Are Tracking Japanese 'Zombie' Banks The truth is more nuanced. Clearly, some Italians are voting no to reject Prime Minister Renzi. But others - including former Prime Minister Mario Monti - are voting no for no change. These voters want to leave in place the current constitution's vital checks and balances. If Italians vote yes to constitutional reform, the upper house of parliament - the Senate - would be relegated to an advisory chamber. Meanwhile, an already approved new electoral law for the lower house of parliament - the Chamber of Deputies - hands an automatic 55 percent majority of seats to the largest party. Some people fear that this combination would amount to excessive executive power. So they are voting no to mitigate the danger. Granted, a no vote might also force Renzi to resign, but this would not necessarily trigger new elections. President Sergio Mattarella would likely explore options for a new government - perhaps a technocratic government - which the parties in the current governing coalition have a strong incentive to support until the next elections are due in 2018. Even if there were early elections, it is improbable that they would result in a government led by the populist 5 Star Movement. If 5 Star was the largest party, it would hold a 55 percent majority of seats in the lower house, but only 30 percent in the upper house, in proportion to its popular vote share (Chart I-2). Therefore, it could not form a government. Under the current constitution, the government needs the support of both houses. The irony is that a yes vote - by giving the executive excessive powers - would make it more likely for a populist party like 5 Star to form a government in 2018 or beyond. Still, even this might prove a tall order. Italy's constitutional court is reviewing the electoral law change that gives 55 percent of lower house seats to the largest party. The court will likely demand more proportionality, making it hard for any one party to win an outright majority. This means more coalition governments, which 5 Star rejects. Hence, an Italian no will not be the equivalent of the Brexit vote or U.S. election of Donald Trump. Fears that it will unleash a dangerous phase of populism and political instability in Italy are overblown. Yet in the last three months, the Italian sovereign yield spread has widened sharply versus France (Chart I-3). Note also that the 65-day fractal dimension of the Italy versus France sovereign bond performance is close to its technical limit, indicating excessive pessimistic groupthink. Chart I-2The 5 Star Movement Could Not Form A ##br##Government Under The Current Constitution Chart I-3Italy's Political Risk Premium Has ##br##Increased, But Is It Justified? If December 4 brings a no vote in the Italian referendum combined with the election of a far-right President of Austria - whose role is largely ceremonial - the knee-jerk market response might still be fright. In which case, a further widening in the Italy/France yield spread would be a tactical entry opportunity, given that political risk is overstated. Fixing Italian Banks Needs A 'Deep-V' Or A 'Long-L' The real question in Italy is not about an imminent populist backlash. The real question is what does the cure for Italy's banking malaise look like? The answer is either a 'deep-V', meaning a banking crisis forces a quick workout; or a 'long-L', meaning no banking crisis but a very long struggle back to normal health. As an investor, neither seems particularly appealing. Italy's banking malaise has built up stealthily, generating frequent financial tremors but without an outright crisis. In contrast, the housing-related credit booms in Ireland, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. did eventually cause housing busts and full-blown financial crises - requiring urgent government-led and central bank-led bailouts. Today, Italian banks' non-performing loans (NPLs) account for 18% of gross lending, and NPLs net of provisions equal 85% of equity capital. A few years ago, Irish banks looked even worse. Irish NPLs peaked at 25% of gross lending in 2013 and net NPLs peaked at 100% of equity capital. Following government bailouts Irish banks have recovered well (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Likewise, the Spanish government created a 'bad bank' in 2012 to offload bank NPLs. Subsequently, Spanish banks' NPLs as a share of gross lending has almost halved. Chart I-4Ireland Looked Worse Than Italy##br## For NPLs As A Share Of Loans Chart I-5Ireland Looked Worse Than Italy ##br##For NPLs As A Share Of Capital Compared to Ireland and Spain, Italy's avoidance of outright crisis (thus far) appears a blessing. Unfortunately, it is now a curse. In waiting so long, Italy cannot follow Ireland, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. in their escapes from their banking woes. The EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), which came into full force on January 1 2016, has blocked the bailout escape route. The BRRD does allow state intervention in a banking crisis. But the overarching aim is to protect banks' critical functions and stakeholders, specifically: payment systems, taxpayers and depositors. Therefore, in a banking crisis "other parts may be allowed to fail in the normal way... after shares in full... then evenly on holders of subordinated bonds and then evenly on senior bondholders." For bank investors, this would constitute the 'deep-V' cure: likely intense pain up-front albeit with much better long-term prospects thereafter. Alternatively, without a crisis, the process to recognise and expunge NPLs would be largely up to the private sector and markets. But a long chain of events from the repossession of assets under bankruptcy law, to valuation, to full divestment from the banks' balance sheets could take years. Indeed, the Chart of the Week shows a striking parallel between Italian bank profits and Japan's 'zombie' bank profits, if we lag the Japanese experience by 17 years. Japan perfectly illustrates this alternative 'long-L' cure: no outright crisis, just a long and seemingly never-ending struggle back to normal health. Either way, absent any further information, we would lean against any knee-jerk rally in Italian banks that followed a yes vote on December 4. What Happens When Bond Yields Spike? Turning to the broader financial markets, a bigger concern is the impact that sharply higher bond yields will have on growth and/or on risk-asset valuations. Higher long-term borrowing costs depress credit growth as captured in the credit impulse (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). A depressed credit impulse then almost always drags down subsequent GDP growth. The recent spike in U.S. 15-year and 30-year mortgage rates has already caused mortgage refinancing applications to plunge by 40% since July (Chart I-8). Chart I-6Higher Bond Yields Depress##br## Credit Growth In Europe... Chart I-7...And In ##br##The U.S. Chart I-8Mortgage Applications##br## Have Plunged Prior to the current incidence, a 50bps rise in the JPM Global Government Bond Yield in just 3 months has occurred only eight times this century (Chart I-9). Table I-1 lists those eight occasions and the subsequent 3-month performance of the equity market. On three out of the eight occasions, the equity market rose modestly, but on the other five it fell. Chart I-9The Bond Yield Has Spiked Table I-1What Happens When Bond Yields Spike? But perhaps the most interesting finding is that on all eight occasions, the equity market's subsequent 3-month performance consistently deteriorated, on average by -7%, compared to the preceding 3-month performance. For reference, today's preceding 3-month performance is just 0.7%. Given this evidence, it is prudent to retain a cautious stance to risk-assets on a 3-month horizon. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* The Italy versus France sovereign bond underperformance indicates excessive pessimistic groupthink. However, in this instance we would wait until after Italy's December 4 referendum on constitutional reform before initiating the countertrend trade. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations

Special Report

My colleague Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President of BCA’s European Investment Strategy, has penned an excellent update on the upcoming Italian constitutional referendum. Dhaval argues that the market is mispricing risks emanating from the referendum. Not all voters who reject the plebiscite are Euroskeptic. In fact, many will vote against the referendum precisely because it removes checks and balances and increases the odds of an anti-establishment party forming a government. Geopolitical Strategy group agrees with Dhaval and has made a similar point in our November Monthly Report. Our September Special Report also posited that Italy cannot easily disentangle itself from European institutions due to its own incomplete unification. This is not to say that Italy is not a risk to the stability of the euro area. There are plenty of reasons to worry, starting with the banking system, which Dhaval addresses in his missive. However, the market’s obsession with the referendum is overdone and thus presents an investment opportunity. I hope you enjoy the European Investment Strategy report and I encourage you to take a look at Dhaval’s research closely, if you are not already a subscriber. Kindest regards, Marko Papic Highlights An Italian referendum 'no' is not really revolting. Some people are voting no for no change to the current constitution's vital checks and balances. Lean against any knee-jerk widening of the Italian sovereign yield spread versus France that followed a no vote. Lean against any knee-jerk rally in Italian banks that followed a yes vote. A 50bps spike in the JPM Global Government Bond Yield in just 3 months is normally a bad omen for risk-asset performance. Retain a cautious stance to risk-assets on a 3-month horizon. Feature After shock victories for Brexit and Donald Trump at the polls, a 'no' vote in Italy's December 4 referendum on constitutional reform would be the next worrying sign of a growing grassroots revolt against the establishment. Or would it? An Italian 'No' Is Not Really Revolting The votes for Brexit or Donald Trump were clearly votes for change. At first glance, an Italian no would also look like a revolt, with the potential to trigger political uncertainty and instability in the euro area's third largest economy. Chart of the WeekItalian Banks Are Tracking Japanese 'Zombie' Banks The truth is more nuanced. Clearly, some Italians are voting no to reject Prime Minister Renzi. But others - including former Prime Minister Mario Monti - are voting no for no change. These voters want to leave in place the current constitution's vital checks and balances. If Italians vote yes to constitutional reform, the upper house of parliament - the Senate - would be relegated to an advisory chamber. Meanwhile, an already approved new electoral law for the lower house of parliament - the Chamber of Deputies - hands an automatic 55 percent majority of seats to the largest party. Some people fear that this combination would amount to excessive executive power. So they are voting no to mitigate the danger. Granted, a no vote might also force Renzi to resign, but this would not necessarily trigger new elections. President Sergio Mattarella would likely explore options for a new government - perhaps a technocratic government - which the parties in the current governing coalition have a strong incentive to support until the next elections are due in 2018. Even if there were early elections, it is improbable that they would result in a government led by the populist 5 Star Movement. If 5 Star was the largest party, it would hold a 55 percent majority of seats in the lower house, but only 30 percent in the upper house, in proportion to its popular vote share (Chart I-2). Therefore, it could not form a government. Under the current constitution, the government needs the support of both houses. The irony is that a yes vote - by giving the executive excessive powers - would make it more likely for a populist party like 5 Star to form a government in 2018 or beyond. Still, even this might prove a tall order. Italy's constitutional court is reviewing the electoral law change that gives 55 percent of lower house seats to the largest party. The court will likely demand more proportionality, making it hard for any one party to win an outright majority. This means more coalition governments, which 5 Star rejects. Hence, an Italian no will not be the equivalent of the Brexit vote or U.S. election of Donald Trump. Fears that it will unleash a dangerous phase of populism and political instability in Italy are overblown. Yet in the last three months, the Italian sovereign yield spread has widened sharply versus France (Chart I-3). Note also that the 65-day fractal dimension of the Italy versus France sovereign bond performance is close to its technical limit, indicating excessive pessimistic groupthink. Chart I-2The 5 Star Movement Could Not Form A ##br##Government Under The Current Constitution Chart I-3Italy's Political Risk Premium Has ##br##Increased, But Is It Justified? If December 4 brings a no vote in the Italian referendum combined with the election of a far-right President of Austria - whose role is largely ceremonial - the knee-jerk market response might still be fright. In which case, a further widening in the Italy/France yield spread would be a tactical entry opportunity, given that political risk is overstated. Fixing Italian Banks Needs A 'Deep-V' Or A 'Long-L' The real question in Italy is not about an imminent populist backlash. The real question is what does the cure for Italy's banking malaise look like? The answer is either a 'deep-V', meaning a banking crisis forces a quick workout; or a 'long-L', meaning no banking crisis but a very long struggle back to normal health. As an investor, neither seems particularly appealing. Italy's banking malaise has built up stealthily, generating frequent financial tremors but without an outright crisis. In contrast, the housing-related credit booms in Ireland, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. did eventually cause housing busts and full-blown financial crises - requiring urgent government-led and central bank-led bailouts. Today, Italian banks' non-performing loans (NPLs) account for 18% of gross lending, and NPLs net of provisions equal 85% of equity capital. A few years ago, Irish banks looked even worse. Irish NPLs peaked at 25% of gross lending in 2013 and net NPLs peaked at 100% of equity capital. Following government bailouts Irish banks have recovered well (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Likewise, the Spanish government created a 'bad bank' in 2012 to offload bank NPLs. Subsequently, Spanish banks' NPLs as a share of gross lending has almost halved. Chart I-4Ireland Looked Worse Than Italy##br## For NPLs As A Share Of Loans Chart I-5Ireland Looked Worse Than Italy ##br##For NPLs As A Share Of Capital Compared to Ireland and Spain, Italy's avoidance of outright crisis (thus far) appears a blessing. Unfortunately, it is now a curse. In waiting so long, Italy cannot follow Ireland, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. in their escapes from their banking woes. The EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), which came into full force on January 1 2016, has blocked the bailout escape route. The BRRD does allow state intervention in a banking crisis. But the overarching aim is to protect banks' critical functions and stakeholders, specifically: payment systems, taxpayers and depositors. Therefore, in a banking crisis "other parts may be allowed to fail in the normal way... after shares in full... then evenly on holders of subordinated bonds and then evenly on senior bondholders." For bank investors, this would constitute the 'deep-V' cure: likely intense pain up-front albeit with much better long-term prospects thereafter. Alternatively, without a crisis, the process to recognise and expunge NPLs would be largely up to the private sector and markets. But a long chain of events from the repossession of assets under bankruptcy law, to valuation, to full divestment from the banks' balance sheets could take years. Indeed, the Chart of the Week shows a striking parallel between Italian bank profits and Japan's 'zombie' bank profits, if we lag the Japanese experience by 17 years. Japan perfectly illustrates this alternative 'long-L' cure: no outright crisis, just a long and seemingly never-ending struggle back to normal health. Either way, absent any further information, we would lean against any knee-jerk rally in Italian banks that followed a yes vote on December 4. What Happens When Bond Yields Spike? Turning to the broader financial markets, a bigger concern is the impact that sharply higher bond yields will have on growth and/or on risk-asset valuations. Higher long-term borrowing costs depress credit growth as captured in the credit impulse (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). A depressed credit impulse then almost always drags down subsequent GDP growth. The recent spike in U.S. 15-year and 30-year mortgage rates has already caused mortgage refinancing applications to plunge by 40% since July (Chart I-8). Chart I-6Higher Bond Yields Depress##br## Credit Growth In Europe... Chart I-7...And In ##br##The U.S. Chart I-8Mortgage Applications##br## Have Plunged Prior to the current incidence, a 50bps rise in the JPM Global Government Bond Yield in just 3 months has occurred only eight times this century (Chart I-9). Table I-1 lists those eight occasions and the subsequent 3-month performance of the equity market. On three out of the eight occasions, the equity market rose modestly, but on the other five it fell. Chart I-9The Bond Yield Has Spiked Table I-1What Happens When Bond Yields Spike? But perhaps the most interesting finding is that on all eight occasions, the equity market's subsequent 3-month performance consistently deteriorated, on average by -7%, compared to the preceding 3-month performance. For reference, today's preceding 3-month performance is just 0.7%. Given this evidence, it is prudent to retain a cautious stance to risk-assets on a 3-month horizon. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* The Italy versus France sovereign bond underperformance indicates excessive pessimistic groupthink. However, in this instance we would wait until after Italy's December 4 referendum on constitutional reform before initiating the countertrend trade. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Fractal Trading Model

Recommended Allocation The Meaning Of Trump Sudden large shocks in markets are rare. But the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President is one such. After a shock of this magnitude, markets tend initially to overreact, then correct, before settling on a new course. Market action since November 9th has caused many asset prices to overshoot short term. It is likely that U.S. bond yields, inflation expectations, the performance of bank and materials stocks, and the U.S. dollar (Chart 1) will correct over the next month or so, perhaps triggered by the Fed's likely rate hike on December 14th or simply by shifting expectations for Trump's economic policies. But what is the likely long-term course, which should set our asset allocation for the next 6 to 12 months? We think investors should take Trump at least partly at his word when he says he will enact tax cuts and increase infrastructure investment. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service sees few constraints on Trump from Congress in the short term.1 The OECD in its latest Economic Outlook has given its imprimatur, arguing that "a stronger fiscal policy response is needed," and estimating that U.S. fiscal stimulus could add 0.1 percentage point to global growth next year and 0.3 points in 2018.2 If such a policy boosted growth and inflation, it would be negative for bonds. The only question, with 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yields having already risen by almost 100 bps since July, is how much of this is priced in. In the long run, government bond yields are broadly correlated with nominal GDP growth (Chart 2). In H1 2016, U.S. nominal GDP growth was 2.7%, and for 2016 as a whole probably about 3.2%. If it picks up to 4-5% in 2017 (2.5-3% real, plus inflation of 1.5-2%), an additional rise of 50-100 bps in the 10-year yield would not be surprising (though ECB and BoJ asset purchases might somewhat limit the rise in yields). Moreover, growth was already accelerating before Trump's victory. The effects of 2015's commodity shock and industrial and profits recessions have passed, with U.S. Q3 GDP growth revised up to 3.2% and the Fed's NowCasting models suggesting 2.5%-3.6% for Q4. The Citi Economic Surprise Index has surprised on the upside in recent weeks both in the U.S. and Europe - though not in emerging markets (Chart 3). And the Q3 earnings season in the U.S. was well above expectations, with EPS coming in at +3.3% YoY (compared to a consensus forecast pre-results of -2.2%). Analysts' forecasts for 2017 EPS growth are a comparatively modest 11%. Chart 1Some Short-Term Overshoots Chart 2Bond Yields Relate To Nominal Growth Chart 3Growth Was Already Surprising On The Upside But whether this new world will be positive for equities is harder to answer. Trump's unpredictability raises policy uncertainty: how much emphasis, for example, will he put on trade protectionism or confrontational foreign policy? This should raise the risk premium. The Fed's response will also be key. Futures have now priced in the rate hike in December and (almost) the two further rate hikes in the Fed's dots for 2017 (Chart 4). But the market still sees the long-term equilibrium rate (as expressed in five-year five-year forwards) as only just over 2%, compared to the Fed's 2.9%. And, although Janet Yellen has suggested that the Fed will act only after Trump's policies take effect ("We will be watching the decisions that Congress makes and updating our economic outlook as the policy landscape becomes clearer," she said), if core PCE inflation continues to pick up in 2017 beyond the current 1.7% and a strong stimulus package is implemented, the Fed might accelerate its rate hikes. More worryingly, Trump's fundamental views on monetary policy are unknown: does he, as a businessman, like low rates, or will he listen to his "hard money" advisers who believe the Fed has been too lax? Since he can appoint six FOMC governors in his first year in office, he will be able to influence monetary policy. Too fast a rise in Fed rates would be negative for equities. On balance, in this environment we see equities outperforming bonds over the next 12 months. It is unusual for the stock-to-bond ratio to decline outside of a global recession (Chart 5) - and, with the extra boost from fiscal policy (with Trump possibly joined by Japan, the U.K., China and others), a recession is unlikely over our forecast horizon. Chart 4Market Has Priced In 2017 Fed Hikes - ##br##But Not The Long-Term Chart 5Stocks Don't Often ##br##Underperform Outside Recession Accordingly, we are raising our recommendation for global equities to overweight, and lowering bonds to underweight. The problem is timing: we recognize that there may be a better entry point over the next couple of months. Some investors may, therefore, want to implement the change gradually. In addition, some recent market moves are not fundamentally justified: for example, we cannot see how the materials sector would be a significant beneficiary from a Trump fiscal stimulus. We plan to make further detailed adjustments to our equity country and sector recommendations and bond-class recommendations in the next Quarterly Portfolio Update, to be published on December 15th. Currencies: Stronger U.S. growth and tighter monetary policy suggest that the USD will continue to appreciate. The dollar looks somewhat expensive but is still well below the peak of overvaluation at the end of previous bouts of strength in 1985 and 2002. The Bank of Japan's policy of capping the 10-year JGB yield at 0% has worked well (pushing the yen down by 12% against the dollar in the past two months) and, as rates elsewhere rise, this implies further long-run yen weakness. The euro is likely to weaken less, with eurozone growth recently surprising on the upside and the ECB therefore likely to reconsider the amount of asset purchases at some point next year, though probably not at its meeting on December 8th. Emerging market currencies continue to look particularly vulnerable. Equities: In common currency terms, U.S. equities are more attractive than European ones. In local currency terms, however, the call is closer since the strong dollar will depress U.S. earnings relative to those in Europe, and an acceleration of global economic growth should help the more cyclical eurozone stock market. On the other hand, Europe faces structural issues, such as the chronically poor profitability of its banking system, and political risk from a series of upcoming elections (starting with the Italian referendum on December 4th). We continue to like Japan (on a currency hedged basis) and expect that the BoJ's policy will be bolstered by government fiscal and employment policies. We remain underweight on emerging markets. They have always been vulnerable during periods of dollar strength, and political side-effects from their bout of economic weakness in 2011-5 are starting to spread, recently to Turkey, Malaysia, India, Brazil, Korea and South Africa. Fixed Income: The risk of tighter Fed policy and higher yields suggest investors should remain underweight duration. We have liked U.S. TIPS over nominal bonds all year and, with 10-year breakeven inflation still only at 1.8%, they remain attractive in the current environment. We reduced high-yield bonds to neutral on September 30th, on the grounds that investors were no longer being sufficiently compensated for default risk: they have subsequently given -3% return, while equities rallied. We recommend investment grade credits for those investors who need to pick up yield (Chart 6). Commodities: After the OPEC agreement on production cuts, we expect the oil price to move towards $55 in the first few months of 2017 as inventories are drawn down. Over the longer run the risk is to the upside as a dearth of new projects, following cancellations last year, will tighten the supply/demand balance. Metals prices have strengthened since Trump's victory, with the CRB Raw Industrials Index up sharply (Chart 7). This makes little sense. Trump's stimulus will be centered on tax, not infrastructure. China remains a far more important factor: the U.S. represented only 7% of global steel consumption in 2015, for example, compared to 43% for China. And China's recent stimulus is running out of steam. Chart 6Yield On Investment Grade Credits ##br##Still Attractive Chart 7Trump Shouldn't Have ##br##This Much Effect On Metals Prices Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report,"U.S. Election: Outcomes and Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see OECD Global Economic Outlook, November 2016, available at http://www.oecd.org/economy/outlook/economicoutlook.htm. Recommended Asset Allocation

Highlights U.S. bond yields and the U.S. dollar will rise further. Consistently, EM currencies and local bonds will continue selling off. There is meaningful downside in EM exchange rates. We recommend short positions in the following basket of EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: KOR, MYR, IDR, TRY, ZAR, BRL, COP and CLP. Within domestic bond portfolios, overweight low-beta defensive markets as well as Russia and Mexico. Our underweights are Turkey, South Africa, Malaysia and Indonesia. The latest exponential rise in commodities prices on Chinese exchanges is an unsustainable speculative frenzy. Feature Emerging market (EM) risk assets will likely continue to be driven by both rising U.S. bond yields and a strong U.S. dollar over the next two months or so. Beyond the next couple of months, the focus of the markets will likely switch to China: renewed weakness in growth and possible instability in its financial markets, with negative implications for China plays globally and for commodities prices in particular. The combination of these two negative forces will lead to a considerable drop in EM currencies in the next six months or so. In turn, EM currency depreciation will trigger broad liquidation of EM risk assets. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service believes that EM risk assets will continue to sell off in absolute terms, and underperform their DM/U.S. peers. EM Local Bonds The total return (including carry) index of JPM GBI-EM1 local currency bonds in U.S. dollar terms has rolled over at a critical resistance level (Chart I-1). The total return index of EM local bonds has also relapsed relative to the total return of 5-year U.S. Treasurys, failing to break above its long-term moving average (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Consistently, domestic bond yields have troughed at important technical levels in several key countries such as Brazil, Turkey, Colombia, Russia, South Africa and Malaysia (Chart I-2A and Chart I-2B). Chart I-1EM Local Bonds' Total ##br##Return In US$: Failed Breakout Chart I-2AHave EM Domestic ##br##Bond Yields Bottomed? Chart I-2BHave EM Domestic ##br##Bond Yields Bottomed? In short, EM local bonds are exhibiting negative technical dynamics that corroborate our downbeat fundamental analysis. Consequently, we believe the total return JPM GBI-EM index in U.S. dollar terms will drop to new lows for the following reasons: Currency swings are responsible for most of the fluctuations in EM local bond total returns. As we have elaborated numerous times and re-assert in this report, the outlook for EM exchange rates remains gloomy. Foreign holdings of EM local currency bonds are substantial (Table I-1). Even though there have been improvements in a few countries, current account and fiscal deficits generally remain wide in the majority of developing nations (Chart I-3A and Chart I-3B). In other words, a number of EM economies are still at risk from a slowdown in foreign funding. Table I-1Foreign Holdings Of EM Local Bonds Chart I-3ACurrent Accounts And Fiscal Deficits Chart I-3BCurrent Accounts And Fiscal Deficits Chart I-4U.S. And EM Local Yields Notably, the bar for exchange rate depreciation is very low in EM economies with current account deficits. It takes only a reduction in net capital and financial inflows - i.e., net outflows are not necessary - for these countries' currencies to depreciate significantly. As net foreign funding diminishes, exchange rates of countries with current account deficits should weaken and interest rates should rise in order to compress domestic demand, which in turn would equalize the current account deficit to net inflows in capital and financial accounts. Finally, the spread of EM local bonds (the yield for GBI-EM global diversified index) over duration-matched (5-year) U.S. Treasury yields has not risen much (Chart I-4). Heightened risks in EM currencies warrant higher local bond yield spreads over U.S. Treasurys. Bottom Line: Absolute return investors should stay away from EM local currency bonds. U.S. Bond Yields And The Dollar: More Upside We expect U.S./DM bond yields to keep rising as re-pricing in global fixed income markets continues. The decline in DM bond yields in recent years until the latest selloff was enormous, and some sort of mean reversion should not come as a surprise. Our bias is that this selloff will likely continue until sometime in January, when U.S. President-elect Donald Trump takes office. This riot in the bond market could, in retrospect, resemble a typical "sell the rumor, buy the news" pattern. In other words, by the time President-elect Trump takes office, a lot of bad news will already be priced into the U.S. bond markets, creating a buying opportunity. In our July 13 Weekly Report,2 we argued that: "In the U.S., the combination of a healthy labor market and a heavily overbought fixed-income market have created the backdrop for a material rise in U.S. interest rate expectations/bond yields. As U.S. rate expectations climb, the U.S. dollar should gain support. This in turn will create headwinds for EM currencies and other EM risk assets." Then, we reiterated this view in our July 27 Weekly Report: "Nowadays, there is little talk in the investment community about a bond bubble and the potential for much higher bond yields. Indeed, "lower for longer" has begun to dominate the investor lexicon. This is a sign that many G7 bond bears have likely capitulated. Investor consensus on bonds has become quite bullish, and many investors are long duration. When many bears capitulate, the odds of a market selloff inevitably rise. "Importantly, the increase in G7 bond yields might not be gradual as many expect because of the following: with yields at such low levels, bonds' duration is high and price changes become very sensitive to changes in yield... Such (large) price changes (drops) would amount to large losses for bond investors, and forced selling could intensify. As a result, the unwinding of long positions could be abrupt and volatile." For now, odds are that U.S. bond yields will rise further. Given global bond funds have seen massive inflows in recent years, the latest drop in prices of various bonds has been substantial and will likely trigger withdrawals and redemptions from bond funds, prompting forced selling. This is true for all types of bond portfolios, including DM government and corporates, EM credit (U.S. dollar bonds) and EM local currency bonds. U.S. bond yields are still low, even from the perspective of the past several years, and the market-implied terminal fed funds rate is still 80 basis points below the median projection of the Federal Open Market Committee's longer-run rate (Chart I-5). Given that U.S. interest rate expectations are not high at all, they will rise further (Chart I-6) as the uptrend in U.S. wages persists - driven by an already reasonably tight labor market (Chart I-7). Chart I-5U.S. Interest Rate Expectations Are Still Low Chart I-6U.S. Wage Growth Is Accelerating Chart I-7More Upside In U.S. Treasurys Yields Finally, the U.S. dollar will continue to be buoyed by rising U.S. interest rate expectations. Our composite momentum indicator for the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar has bounced off the zero line (Chart I-8). This constitutes a strong technical confirmation of the durable bullish market trend in the dollar. Bottom Line: Odds are that the rise in U.S. bond yields is not over. As U.S. bond yields rise further, EM currencies and bonds will sell off. Long-Term EM Currency Trends We have several observations on the long-term performance of EM currencies and financial markets: In the long run, there is no guarantee that the majority of EM currencies will appreciate in real terms (adjusted for inflation differentials). In fact, even countries such as Korea and Taiwan - which have been very successful in their economic development and have tremendously grown their income per capita - have seen their real (inflation-adjusted) exchange rates depreciate over the past several decades (Chart I-9). The case for long-term appreciation in real terms is even weaker for exchange rates in countries that exhibit chronically high inflation rates and/or current account deficits. This has been true for many non-Asian EM currencies (Chart I-10). Chart I-8The U.S. Dollar Is ##br##In A Genuine Bull Market Chart I-9Long-Term Currency ##br##Downtrends In Korea And Taiwan Chart I-10EM Currency Trends: ##br##A Long-Term Perspective Importantly, most losses to foreign investors in EM financial markets often occur via currency depreciation. This is even truer in the current bear market downtrend. The JPM ELMI+ currency total return index (including cost of carry) seems to be about to break down (Chart I-11). In EM ex-China, the real effective exchange rate is still elevated (Chart I-12). Given their poor productivity growth outlook, the real effective exchange rates will be inclined to depreciate. Chart I-11EM Currency Return With Cost ##br##Of Carry Versus U.S. Dollar Chart I-12Weak Productivity Means ##br##Further Currency Depreciation To limit the upside in domestic interest rates - both in bond yields and interbank rates - many developing nations' central banks will inject more local currency liquidity into their respective systems.3 This might help cap local interest rates, but is bearish for their currencies. The Turkish central bank has been among the most aggressive in this disguised money printing, and not surprisingly the value of its currency has collapsed (Chart I-13). There is no long-term history for EM currencies, as before 1998 most developing nations' exchange rates were pegged. Yet when one examines EM equities' relative performance against the S&P 500, it emerges that there is no single EM bourse that has outperformed U.S. stocks on a consistent basis in the very long run. Chart I-14A and Chart I-14B demonstrate that among 11 EM equity markets that have a long-term history, none have outperformed the S&P 500 over the past 30-35 years. Chart I-13Turkey's Central Bank Has Been ##br##Pumping Local Currency Into The System Chart I-14AEM Equities Versus The S&P 500: ##br##A Long-Term Perspective Chart I-14BEM Equities Versus The S&P 500: ##br##A Long-Term Perspective This goes to reveal that the starting point of underdevelopment and the mark "emerging" does not guarantee consistent outperformance even in the long run. In fact, EM's relative performance against the U.S. has followed multi-year cycles, and we believe the current bear market and underperformance is not yet over. While EM underperformance is long in duration, economic and financial adjustments remain incomplete. DM QE programs and China's still-growing credit bubble have delayed the adjustment. As a rule, the longer a financial or economic imbalance/excess lingers, the more protracted the adjustment will be. Bottom Line: EM exchange rates will continue depreciating. We recommend short positions in the following basket of EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: KRW, MYR, IDR, TRY, ZAR, BRL, COP and CLP. For a complete list of our open currency and fixed-income trades please refer to page 18. Country Allocation For EM Local Bond Portfolios Chart I-15 demonstrates the relationship between developing countries' foreign funding requirements and their real (inflation-adjusted) local bond yields. The foreign funding requirement is calculated as the sum of the current account deficit and foreign debt service obligations over the next 12 months. We use inflation-linked (real) bond yields for markets where they are available. In other cases, we subtract the headline inflation rate from nominal bond yields to derive the real one. Chart I-15Real Bond Yields And Foreign Funding Requirements: A Cross Country Comparison The higher the foreign funding requirement, the higher the real yield must be to attract foreign capital, all else equal. On this diagram, the value pockets are Brazil (its real yield of 6.3% offers the best value by far), Indonesia, Russia and India. Domestic real yields in these countries are relatively high compared to their foreign funding requirements, which is a proxy for exchange rate risk. In contrast, Turkey, Chile, Colombia, Hungary and Malaysia have low real yields relative to their large foreign funding requirements. However, there are other factors that are shaping local yields. For example, Brazilian real yields look very attractive on this matrix because the latter does not account for public debt dynamics. The fiscal dynamics in Brazil are dreadful.4 On the contrary, Chilean local bonds appear expensive, but the country's fiscal outlook is very healthy. After considering all factors that affect local bond yields as well as incorporating the currency outlook, we recommend the following allocations: Overweight Korea, Thailand, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Russia and Mexico (Chart I-16). For investors who can invest in Chinese, Taiwanese and Indian local bonds, we also recommend overweighting these markets within an EM domestic bond portfolio. Underweight Turkish, South African, Malaysian and Indonesian local currency bonds (Chart I-17). We will publish our analysis on Indonesia soon. Stay neutral on domestic bonds' total return in U.S. dollar terms in Brazil (with a negative bias because of the considerable currency risk), Chile and Colombia (Chart I-18). Chart I-16Our Recommended ##br##Overweights In Local Bonds Chart I-17Our Recommended ##br##Underweights In Local Bonds Chart I-18Local Bonds ##br##Warranting A Neutral Allocation A Word On China's Commodities Frenzy Speculative fever is running high in Chinese commodities exchanges. Frenetic commodities trading in China has seen prices skyrocket of late (Chart I-19). Prices often rise a limit during a day. We have the following observations: This stampede into commodities is a reflection of rotating bubbles in China. Mania forces rotated from property to stocks, then to corporate bonds, and then back to housing, again. It seems to be shifting into commodities now. While the mainland's industrial sector and real demand for commodities have registered gradual improvement in recent months, the sharp spike in commodities prices largely reflects speculative activity much more than real demand. In fact, net imports of base metals have been flat for the past six years (zero growth in six years), and all swings have most likely been related to inventory cycles (Chart I-20). Chart I-19The Spike In Commodities ##br##Prices Trading In China Chart I-20China: Net Import Of Base Metals Like any speculative frenzy, this is momentum-driven and will one day crash. Timing the reversal is impossible. A lot depends on policymakers' willingness to confront this speculative bubble and investor psychology. Notably, onshore corporate bond yields and swap rates have recently begun rising. As in DM bonds, the rise in yields from very low levels is causing large price drops. As and if yields rise further, losses in corporate bonds will become considerable and investors (especially ones managing retail investors' money) will head for the exits, triggering liquidation. This, along with the eventual unraveling of commodities speculation poses substantial potential risk to global, or at least EM, financial markets. Bottom Line: The latest exponential rise in commodities prices on Chinese exchanges is an unsustainable speculative frenzy that will end badly. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy & Frontier Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 The JPMorgan Government Bond Index-Emerging Markets (GBI-EM) indices are emerging market debt benchmarks that track local currency bonds issued by Emerging Market governments. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Risks To Our Negative EM View," dated July 13, 2016. 3 Please see "EM: Is The Liquidity Upturn Genuine And Sustainable?" Parts I & II, dated November 25, 2015 and December 2, 2015, respectively. 4 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Brazil: The Honeymoon Is Over," dated August 3, 2016. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Duration: The odds of further bond bearish catalysts emerging during the next 6-12 months are still quite elevated. Maintain below benchmark duration. Global Bond Strategy: The most likely candidates for another bond bearish catalyst would be an announcement of substantial fiscal stimulus from Japan and/or a hawkish policy shift from the Fed. Investors should remain overweight core Europe, underweight U.S. Treasuries and neutral on JGBs. U.S. High-Yield: Given current spread levels and our default loss expectations, valuation in the U.S. high-yield market sends neither a strong buy nor sell signal. Feature In a U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report1 published in August we observed that, since the financial crisis, material increases in global bond yields have all been associated with a policy catalyst (Chart 1). We identified three such catalysts: the Fed's 2010 announcement of QE2, the Fed signaling its willingness to slow the pace of asset purchases in 2013, and the European Central Bank's (ECB) announcement of its own QE program in 2015. Now we can add the election of Donald Trump as a fourth catalyst that has spurred a tantrum in global bond markets. Chart 1The Four Post-Crisis Bond Tantrums The common factor that links all of these catalysts is that each causes the market to quickly re-assess its expectations about the future pace of monetary tightening. Interestingly, this re-assessment can be caused by either the announcement of a program that is perceived to be extremely stimulative or the announcement that monetary stimulus will be scaled back. Examples of the former include both the Fed's and ECB's QE announcements as well as the recent U.S. election. An example of the latter would be the 2013 taper tantrum. As in August, the goal of this report is to perform a quick survey of the major global economies in order to assess the likelihood that another bond-bearish catalyst emerges during the next 6-12 months. While we find it difficult to see a catalyst of the same scale as those shown in Chart 1, we assign high odds to the possibility that the announcement of fiscal easing in Japan will add to the bearish pressure on global bonds. We also assign high odds to the possibility that upside inflation surprises in the U.S. cause the Fed to adopt a more hawkish forward guidance, further increasing the bearish pressure on global bonds. We assign low odds to the possibility that ECB policy will contribute to the global bond selloff. U.S. Chart 2Fed Wants Breakevens To Head Higher The recent "Trump Tantrum" has sent yields sharply higher, and expectations priced into the U.S. bond market are now not far from the Fed's median rate hike expectations, especially at the short-end of the curve (Chart 2). In the U.S., the next most likely catalyst for sharply higher global bond yields would be the Fed signaling that it will adopt a quicker pace of rate hikes. Specifically, the Fed would need to cease revising its funds rate forecasts lower - which has been the pattern for the last few years - and start revising them higher. While the market was quick to price-in the likelihood of greater fiscal stimulus and rising deficits under the incoming government, the Fed will take a more cautious approach. In fact, with inflation still below target (Chart 2, bottom panel) and market-based measures of inflation compensation still depressed, the Fed will be in no rush to signal a more hawkish policy stance. We expect the Fed will follow through with an expected rate increase in December, but that the median expectation will continue to call for only two more hikes in 2017. The Fed is only likely to shift toward a more hawkish policy stance once inflation expectations are more firmly anchored around levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target. This corresponds to a range of 2.4% to 2.5% on the 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate (Chart 2, second panel). Assuming that U.S. economic growth continues to accelerate into next year, as we expect, then the 5y5y TIPS breakeven rate could reach this target sometime in the middle of 2017. At that point, a more hawkish Fed policy becomes more likely. In the meantime, while the "Trump Tantrum" is likely to take a pause in the near-term (next 1-2 months), it may not have run its course just yet. If U.S. growth is strong in 2017 and the Trump administration appears to be making progress implementing its more stimulative policies, then the Treasury curve will likely resume its bear-steepening trend in the first half of next year.2 Euro Area Chart 3Strong Growth, But Plenty Of Slack According to the OECD and others, including the European Commission and ECB, trend GDP growth in the Eurozone is below 1%. In fact, most estimates center around 0.7%. This means that as long as GDP growth is maintained above these levels we should expect the labor market to continue to tighten. At least for now, the data suggest that growth is likely to remain well above trend. Led by gains in both the services and manufacturing indexes, the euro area's composite PMI jumped from 53.3 to 54.1 in November. The composite PMI has a good track record of leading European GDP growth (Chart 3), and the current reading is consistent with GDP growth of 2%. Despite strong growth, the ECB's policy stance is likely to remain accommodative for quite some time and is unlikely to spur a global bond tantrum within our 6-12 month investment horizon. The fact that core inflation remains below 1% (Chart 3, panel 3) tells us that the output gap in the euro area is still very wide. It will take a prolonged period of strong growth for the output gap to close and for inflationary pressures to mount. In prior cycles inflation has not begun to accelerate until the unemployment rate was below 9% (shaded regions in Chart 3). An announcement from the ECB that it will cease its asset purchase program because the economy has made adequate progress toward its economic and inflation goals would likely spur a large rise in global bond yields. However, this is unlikely to occur until the unemployment rate is below 9% and inflation is in an uptrend. As we argued in a recent Global Fixed Income Strategy report,3 the ECB will be able to alter the rules regarding the quantity of bonds available for purchase as is necessary to keep the program in place. Japan The Bank of Japan (BoJ) recently switched to a policy framework that involves targeting a level of yields as opposed to a quantity of purchases. In our view, this sends a pretty strong signal that monetary policy is close to being exhausted and that fiscal policy must take up the baton of Abenomics. While the timing and amount of any additional fiscal spending is not clear, it is probably necessary if policymakers are serious about reaching their 2% inflation goal. Chart 4Policy Action Required In Japan At present, the Japanese Diet is currently deliberating the third revision to the second supplementary budget and government officials have signaled that there will be more coordination between monetary and fiscal policy in the future. The government is also debating ways to boost household income, including raising government wages, lifting the minimum wage and providing tax incentives for the private sector to be more generous on the wage front. While any fiscal measures would not spur an increase in nominal JGB yields (because the BoJ will retain the cap), they would spur an increase in inflation expectations and a decline in real yields (Chart 4). We also think that the reflationary impulse would be felt by bond markets in the rest of the world, and that large enough fiscal stimulus from Japan would pressure global bond yields higher even though JGBs remain capped. Admittedly, the cap on nominal JGB yields would limit the contagion from Japanese fiscal stimulus to the rest of the global bond market. As would the impact of a depreciating yen relative to the euro and U.S. dollar. However, we also suspect that the shift toward greater fiscal stimulus in both the U.S. and Japan would cause investors to revise their global growth expectations higher, and that this impact would dominate in terms of the impact on global bond yields. Investment Conclusions The odds of further bond bearish catalysts emerging during the next 6-12 months remain quite elevated. The most likely candidates would be an announcement of substantial fiscal stimulus in Japan and/or a hawkish policy shift from the Fed. The ECB is unlikely to contribute to the bearish pressure on global bonds during the next 6-12 months. As such, we continue to recommend a below benchmark duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. In global bond portfolios, investors should remain overweight core Europe, underweight U.S. Treasuries and neutral JGBs. Valuation & Expected Returns In U.S. High-Yield A commonly used tool for assessing value in the high-yield bond market is a default-adjusted spread. That is, we formulate an expectation for default losses during our investment horizon and compare it to the spread that is currently on offer. If the current spread is elevated compared to our expectation for default losses then the default-adjusted spread is high and we would see good value in high-yield bonds relative to equivalent-duration Treasuries. This week we examine two different formulations of a default-adjusted spread for the U.S. high-yield market and test how well each corresponds to excess junk returns. The first measure we look at is a true ex-ante measure. It relies only on data that are available in real time, and can therefore be used as part of a trading strategy. Specifically, our ex-ante default-adjusted spread is calculated as the average option-adjusted spread from the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. High-Yield index less an expectation of default losses for the subsequent 12 month period. Expected default losses are calculated by taking the Moody's baseline forecast for the U.S. speculative grade default rate during the next 12 months and multiplying it by 1 minus our forecast of the recovery rate for this same period. We forecast the recovery rate based on its historical relationship with the default rate. The second measure we examine is an ex-post default-adjusted spread. In this case we look at the average spread of the index less actual default losses that are realized during the subsequent 12 months. As such, this measure can only be calculated after the fact. Comparing the ex-ante and ex-post measures, we see that both tend to reside within a range of 200 to 300 basis points. However, the ex-post measure periodically shows a negative value while the ex-ante measure is more often above 300 bps (Chart 5). This tells us that when forecasting default losses it is more common to underestimate default losses, rather than overestimate them. Chart 5Distribution of Default-Adjusted Spreads Over Time The next thing we look at is how closely each measure aligns with high-yield excess returns (Charts 6 & 7). Our ex-ante measure explains 34% of the variation in high-yield excess returns since 2002 (when our sample begins). Predictably, the ex-post measure, which removes the error surrounding the default loss forecast, explains a greater proportion of the variation in excess junk returns (53%). Our sample period is also longer for the ex-post measure, beginning in 1995. Chart 612-Month Excess High-Yield Returns Vs.##br## Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread (2002 - Present) Chart 712-Month Excess High-Yield Returns Vs. ##br##Ex-Post Default-Adjusted Spread (1995 - Present) The current average option-adjusted spread for the High-Yield index is 459 bps. If we incorporate the Moody's baseline forecast for the default rate during the next 12 months (4.1%) and our forecast for the recovery rate (39%), then we calculate an ex-ante default-adjusted spread of 210 bps. Using the relationship in Chart 6, this translates into an expected 12-month excess return of -26 bps. If we assume there is no error in our forecast then we can use the relationship in Chart 7. In that case, our expected 12-month excess return would be +55 bps. Of course, that exercise imposes a linear relationship between excess returns and the default-adjusted spread and doesn't consider that there is considerable variation in actual excess returns around this trendline. For that reason, in Charts 8 & 9 we split both our default-adjusted spread measures into intervals of 50 basis points. For each interval we display the average 12-month excess return along with a 90% confidence interval for where those returns are likely to fall. Chart 812-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & 90% Confidence Intervals: ##br##Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Chart 912-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & 90% Confidence Intervals:##br## Ex-Post Default-Adjusted Spread Specifically, the blue dots in Charts 8 & 9 show the 12-month excess return that is earned on average when the default-adjusted spread falls into a particular interval. The top and bottom edges of the vertical lines correspond to the upper and lower limits of the 90% confidence interval. More statistics related to the 12-month excess returns that have been observed when the default-adjusted spread falls into a specific interval can be found in the Appendix to this report. The main message from these charts is that a default-adjusted spread below 100 bps is a powerful sell signal, while a default-adjusted spread above 350 bps is a powerful buy signal. Between those two thresholds the signal is less clear. Bottom Line: Given current spread levels and our default loss expectations, valuation in the U.S. high-yield market sends neither a strong buy nor sell signal, but is consistent with small positive excess returns. Our inclination is to remain cautious on U.S. high-yield for the time being, but to look for opportunities to upgrade from more attractive valuations. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "The Tantrum Theory Of Global Bond Yields", dated August 16, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Toward A Cyclical Sweet Spot?", dated November 22, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The ECB's Next Move: Extend & Pretend", dated October 25, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com Appendix Table 112-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Table 212-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification